London Borough of Redbridge v Person C & Ors

Today I am concerned with two children: [Person A], born on [redacted], who is in foster care pursuant to an interim care order made on 2^nd November 2021; and [Person B], born on [redacted], who is also in foster care with her sister pursuant to an interim care order made on 14^th March 2023.

Their mother, [Person C], is in court and their grandmother, [Person E], is also a party.

Their father is [Person D], who does not share parental responsibility for either child. He remains in prison following a murder conviction. He was sentenced to life and a minimum of 22 years in 2022 and he first participated in a hearing on 4^th December 2024. I gave a judgment that he should not be joined as a party when the Local Authority made an application on his behalf, having heard that he wished to attend a court hearing.

This is an application for a care order for [Person A] dated 13^th October 2021 and for [Person B] dated 30^th August 2022. Both children are subject to an application for a placement order made on 24^th March 2025. I heard this matter on 25^th, 26^th, 27^th and 28^th March and am giving judgment today, 1^st April 2025.

I am very grateful to all of the advocates: Mr Purss representing the Local Authority, Ms Marks representing [Person C], Mr Bailey representing [Person E] and Ms Bartholomew representing the children through their Guardian, Ms Hanif.

The social work chronology sets out that both [Person C] and [Person D] have had historic involvement with children’s services dating as far back as 2006 for [Person D] when there was concern about criminality and, for the mother, dating back to 2017. The social work evidence highlights how the parents’ own experiences of parenting during their childhood led to them coming to the attention of social care.

[Person A] first became known to children’s services on 2^nd December 2019 pre-birth, through a referral from the midwifery team and she was made subject to a child protection plan on 26^th February 2021.

Under the public law outline, the Local Authority progressed the case on 27^th April 2021 and the Local Authority set out how [Person A] was exposed to a volatile environment and there was evidence of [Person D] being involved in crime and [Person C] being a vulnerable young lady who was caught up in arguments with her family.

The Local Authority seek care and placement orders. They say that I should not make a s.26 order, but they do support direct contact once a year for [Person C] and for [Person E]. They say that there has been an exhaustive assessment of family members and that nothing else will do short of adoption.

[Person C] wants the children to come back to her and, if not that, to [Person E]. Failing that, her third option is foster care and adoption, she says, is the last resort. Ms Marks highlights all the positives that [Person C] has achieved and all the support that could be put in place and asks for a s.26 order.

Through Mr Bailey, [Person E] submits that she can care for the children if [Person C] cannot and he asks for the recommendations of Ms W, the floating support worker, to be put in place. He says that [Person E] would accept a non-molestation order to keep members of the wider family away.

The Guardian says that everything possible has been done to keep the children in their birth family and that the children need the court to make care and placement orders now. She does not support the making of a s.26 order.

The Local Authority, of course, bring this case and they must prove it on the balance of probabilities. These proceedings have been going on too long and I remind myself of s.32 of the Children Act 1989 which says that the court can only consider an extension of timetable where this is necessary in order for the courts to resolve proceedings justly and, whenever I grant an extension of timetable, I must have regard to the impact that that would have on the welfare of the child and on the duration and conduct of the proceedings.

I remind myself of the no delay principle in s.1 of the Children Act 1989 and the Adoption and Children Act 2002 and that delay in coming to a decision for these two girls is likely to prejudice their welfare. There has been delay in this case due to the way in which family members have come forward and at times, as set out on the face of my order, due to non-compliance, particularly when I look at [Person F]’s application for a further assessment of her. I remind myself of the desirability of the child being brought up by the extended family which must be balanced with the need to avoid delay in planning for a child’s future and that neither principle has greater weight (see London Borough of Tower Hamlets v. D, E and F [2014] EWHC 3901).

I also remind myself that there is no right or presumption for a child to be brought up by his natural family and arrangements will be determined by the paramount consideration of his welfare (see Re W (A Child) (Adoption: Grandparents competing claim) [2016] EWCA Civ. 793).

Because both [Person C] and [Person E] have some learning difficulties, I remind myself of the case of Re D (A Child) [2016] EWFC 1 in which the President of the Family Division sets out a number of important points that courts must remember when working with parents with learning difficulties. The President first cited the case of Y v. United Kingdom [2012] 55 EHRR 33 in which I remind myself that:

“Family ties may only be severed in very exceptional circumstances and everything must be done to preserve personal relations and where appropriate to rebuild the family. It is not enough to show the child could be placed in a more beneficial environment for his upbringing. However, where the maintenance family ties would harm the child’s health and development, a parent is not entitled under Art.8 to insist that such ties be maintained.”

I remind myself of the well-known passage in the judgment of Re L (Care: Threshold Criteria) [2007] 1 FLR 2050:

“Society must be willing to tolerate very diverse standards of parenting including the eccentric the barely adequate and the inconsistent. It is not the provenance of the State to spare children all the consequences of defective parenting. In any event, it simply could not be done.”

The President has also endorsed the approach taken by Mr Justice Gillan in a case called G v. A (Care Order: Freeing Order: Parents with a Learning Disability) [2006] NIFam 8. The words of Mr Justice Gillan I have read in full, but two passages which I quote set the tone:

“People with learning disabilities are individuals first and foremost and each has a right to be treated as an equal citizen. Government policy emphasises the importance of people with a learning disability being supported to fully engage in playing a role in civic society. They are valued citizens. This court accepts that parents with learning difficulties can often be good enough parents when provided with the ongoing emotional and practical support they need and the concept of parenting with support must be the approach wherever parents have learning difficulties.”

The key principles that Mr Justice Gillan sets out for working with parents with learning difficulties are in the annex to his judgment and the most relevant for these purposes are: That it is important that the court approaches cases with a recognition of the possible barriers to appropriate support to parents, including negative or stereotypical attitudes; the court itself must take steps to ensure that there are no barriers to justice within the process itself and that Judges and Magistrates must recognise that parents with learning difficulties need extra time with their solicitors so everything can be carefully explained; and finally, a shift must be made from the old assumption that adults with learning difficulties cannot parent to a process of questioning why appropriate levels of support are not provided to them so that they can parent successfully. Of course, whenever I make a decision, I need to make sure that it is fully explained to the parents and I am grateful for the presence of an intermediary in court to assist with that.

The President of the Family Division also issued guidance on 10^th April 2018 in relation to family proceedings and parents with learning difficulties called the “Good Practice Guidance on Working with Parents with a Learning Disability” and an up to date version of this guidance is something that I have considered. The guidance was referred to with approval in a number of cases including Kent County Council v. A Mother, X, Y and Z (Minors) [2011] EWHC 401; Medway Council v. A and Anor. (Learning Disability) [2015] EWFC B62 and applied in A Local Authority v. G (Parent with a Learning Disability) [2017] EWFC B94. This Good Practice Guidance sets out five key features of working with parents with learning disabilities: Accessible information and communication, clear and coordinated referral process, support designed to meet their needs based on an assessment of their needs and strengths, long term support if necessary and access to independent advocacy.

Finally, the Court of Appeal in Re H [2023] EWCA Civ. 59 gave a guidance on working with parents with learning difficulties. I need to identify the level of support needed by the family, ascertain what can and should be done under the Local Authority’s obligations, and determine whether with that in place the child’s welfare needs will be met.

It has been clear from the psychologist who assessed [Person C] pre-proceedings that her abilities fall within the borderline range of intellectual functioning. That psychologist recommended that she would benefit from the support provided by an advocate, although he did not believe she would need an intermediary. [Person C] had an advocate until, I think, some point in 2023 and my understanding is that the funding for that service stopped and the Local Authority have attempted to find a new advocate for her but without success. The psychologist in his addendum report reflected that, if the role of the advocate could not help [Person C] in court, she may benefit from an intermediary. We have had an intermediary for [Person C] at every hearing. The President’s guidance in relation to intermediaries came out around the time of the pre-trial review and we have therefore had an intermediary for [Person C] for day 1 and the day on which she gave evidence. There is one here for [Person E] today, who I know will help both parties understand the judgment given. There were clear ground rules set out in the face of my pre-trial review order and I have not been alerted to any failure to follow those as we have progressed through the case.

There was also a cognitive assessment carried out of [Person E] and that concluded she has cognitive difficulties and extremely low intellectual functioning, a mild learning disability, and recommendations were given as to how to work with her. Person C has had a Parent Assess Model (“PAMS”) used in her assessments and I heard evidence how a social worker provided her with a calendar in July 2024 and indeed one was also in use in 2022, so there is evidence of good practice being adopted for [Person C].

When [Person E]’s cognitive difficulties became apparent, the assessor did the right thing and flagged this and she, the lady who assessed [Person E], gave evidence that in carrying out her assessment she would tailor it to how [Person E] presented each day, that she would make sure she broke down her questions and ensured that [Person E] understood. They went over the material they had covered last time at the beginning of each session, which helped her to go back and reflect. That assessor had done parent assess reports and seemed to have an awareness of how to work with those learning needs.

I have read the bundle, the contact bundle, two supplemental bundles, the Guardian’s final analysis and all documents handed in after the bundles were submitted. Some of those bundles contain hearsay evidence that has not been tested in cross examination and I remind myself of the weaknesses of that type of evidence and the weight I attach to it is a matter for me. I have considered all that I have heard and read and I will not repeat it all in this overlong judgment, but I will refer specifically to evidence which has been material to my decision and start by a summary of each live witness evidence.

The psychologist who assessed the girls was a thoughtful and careful witness. She gave evidence that play therapy should start now for both girls together. She said anyone looking after the girls needed to be patient, nurturing and able to deal with traumatised children and their difficulties. She thought it was important not to pathologize the children but made it clear that it is not going to be easy; whatever happens has potential problems.

The social worker for the children came across as a conscientious witness. She has been the children’s social worker since July 2024 and she is going to remain the social worker unless a Special Guardianship order was made to some other borough. Her knowledge of the children came alive when she spoke of [Person A]’s love for unicorns and she clearly knows the family very well and has worked hard outside the courtroom last week to make sure that additional documents were prepared.

The assessor who did the final parenting assessment of [Person C] was a deeply impressive witness. She was thoughtful and had a real insight into the things that had happened for [Person C] in the past that impacted the way she was today. She described going over and above the usual social work practice to engage with [Person C], she sent her reminders and called her more than once if [Person C] did not pick up. From the email she provided after her evidence, it seems that she was prepared to start sessions late and rearrange them at the last minute. [Person C] missed three and was late for three sessions, according to that email. But this assessor was a balanced witness who clearly had a degree of compassion for [Person C], but remained clear and consistent in her view she could not provide the children with the care they needed in their time frame.

The family finder was an impressive and knowledgeable witness with a vast working knowledge of procedure and the training that underpins the adoption process. Sometimes family finder witnesses can be formulaic and generic in their approach, but that was not the case here. She showed a depth of understanding about the benefits and complexities of post-adoption contact. She thought that a post-adoption contact agreement would be beneficial and it would be possible for [Person C] to meet the adopted family. She gave evidence that the adoption was the most secure permanent placement with a lower breakdown rate than long term foster care, which had a breakdown rate of around 8-10 per cent higher than adoption. She worked on the basis that adopted children needed better than good enough care and, given the reasons that the children had been placed in care, she said that the training prepared adopters for this. She gave evidence that, when a s.26 contact order is made, this can reduce the number of adopters who may be interested because they are worried about what would happen if the child does not want to go and whether they would be in breach of the court order. She clarified that this was still the case even when Ms Marks pointed out the legal significance of a s.26 order to her.

The social worker who assessed [Person E] clearly wanted to be fair to [Person E] and, when [Person E] told her she would do anything to help the children, the assessor wanted to give her a chance to do just that and so gave a cautiously positive recommendation. She was able to reflect with hindsight it might have been better to say at that stage that the assessment was not complete and she needed more information, but clearly she wanted to allow [Person E] an opportunity to put what she spoke about into practice. She relied a great deal on what [Person E] told her which struck me as somewhat naive given the evidence that is available to her in the bundle. However, the rest of her evidence was clear that, despite the family support worker giving a high level of support to [Person E] in extended contact sessions, she had not seen the change that she had hoped for. [Person E] did not complete the parenting course despite saying she would do anything and questioned the value of the domestic abuse work, the assessor said.

[Person E] was a brave and honest witness. I think it took a lot of courage for her to give evidence and I think she was doing her best to be open with me. She spoke vividly and in detail about the domestic abuse she suffered. It was some of the most harrowing testimony I have heard and it was compelling. [Person E] must be clear that I believed what she was saying. She is clearly vulnerable and in fear of being blamed if the children do not return to the family, but I think she has done everything within her power to support her daughter and granddaughters.

[Person C] was a thoughtful witness often pausing for a long time to think about things before she replied. I am mindful that the first psychologist said that [Person C] finds putting her thoughts into words more demanding than other people might. It was clear how much she loves her girls and I think she tried her best to be open with me and told me things in the witness box that we did not know before. She has come to every single court hearing and it took real courage for her to speak to me.

The Guardian was a clear and compelling witness. This is a Guardian who does her utmost to be physically in court at every hearing and what became clear is how well she knew this family, how many really important conversations had taken place at outside court and how she is a formidable advocate on behalf of the girls regularly writing to the IRO and pressing the Local Authority for what she thinks the girls need.

The threshold is crossed on the basis of the schedule to my September 2023 order, so I move on to the welfare analysis.

The welfare of the children is my paramount consideration and I remind myself of the no-order principle. I look at the children’s ascertainable wishes and feelings in light of their age and understanding and no doubt they would want to be cared for by their family but they are too young to grasp the complexities that I have to consider. [Person A] expressed recently she would like to live with [Person G] and she tells the psychologist very positive things about her time with her paternal family. The psychologist says, almost certainly, if able to articulate their wishes [Person A] and [Person B] would seek to stay together. If separated from each other, there would be an acute sense of loss.

I look at their physical, emotional and educational needs. [Person A] started school in September 2024 and the school told the psychologist that until fairly recently there were no complaints from the school but since December she has been displaying defiance, shouting out and interrupting other children but when in a good mood [Person A]’s manners are impeccable. The psychologist found she was within the average band of intelligence for children her age. She notes that [Person A] has a tendency to say “I don’t know” when faced with some tasks and it has been impossible for the psychologist to ascertain whether she really does not know or she is unwilling or cannot be bothered to try. Although she presents as a confident, resilient child, [Person A] is emotionally vulnerable having experienced instability for much of her short life and it is hardly surprising when faced with tasks she finds difficult that she disconnects. The psychologist says:

“I have observed her displaying excellent concentration when undertaking pursuits she enjoys and one would hope that, when she achieves emotional stability, her educational progress will be satisfactory.”

[Person B] attends nursery and it is vital that there are steps taken to get her into her new nursery placement as quickly as possible. The psychologist reports that she was doing very well at her last nursery and staff had no concerns about her. She comes into nursery well since joining and separates easily from the foster carer.

When I look at their emotional needs, [Person B]’s behaviours were entirely appropriate for her developmental level and the psychologist did not observe any behavioural difficulties.

In relation to [Person A], the psychologist was told by her foster carer that she is often very insolent, she will shout at the carer and stare at her defiantly, and when asked to do something will do the opposite. She will deny naughty behaviour even if she has been observed doing something inappropriate and there are incidents every day of biting, shouting or screaming. The psychologist’s assessment of this is that the children have not had consistent parenting and thus they push boundaries, possibly testing how far they can go with an authority figure. Although they are too young to be fully aware, it is evident that they cannot trust family members to prioritise their needs. They need, says the psychologist, calm receptive care that is attuned to their experience. At times adults have found [Person A]’s behaviour overwhelming and unrelenting and the psychologist says that anyone caring for her needs to be resilient, patient and firm. She requires better than good enough parenting.

The previous foster carer who had had the girls for some time gave notice in February this year and had noticed an increase of a display of externalised dysregulation behaviours which started once the children had contact in the community with [Person C] and [Person E]. Therefore, even a very experienced therapeutic carer found meeting their emotional needs was complex to the point that notice was given.

I look at their physical needs and reading over the foster carer logs, [Person A], who is potty trained, begins to wet herself again in the summer of 2024 and then when she starts school on occasion which may be suggestive of a degree of emotional upset.

I look at the likely effect of change on these children and the children have had the following placements since the commencement of proceedings:

The psychologist gave evidence that, as a result of this change, they do not have any sense of security or permanence and cannot trust adults. Both [Person C] and [Person E] and [Person F] are willing to have the children in their care. If that were to happen, there would need to be a period of transition and testing and, when I look at changes of circumstances for the children, it would be, I think, catastrophic for the children to be returned to their family only to be removed again so any future change of circumstances for these girls needs to be managed with the utmost care.

I look at their age, sex and backgrounds. They are of [redacted] heritage. The Together and Apart assessments and the psychologists recommend they are placed together. The psychologist was told by the foster carer that [Person A] and [Person B] do not appear to have a close bond; they share a bedroom, but are often heard bickering and provoking one another. That carer would have considered it important for the children to stay together but now wonders if this is the best option as there is potential for [Person B] to be adopted but this may not be possible for [Person A] and she thought [Person A] would thrive in a placement where she was the only child so she could get undivided individual attention.

The psychologist considers this and recommends a skilled play therapist to undertake joint sessions with them to encourage cooperative play and sharing. Her view is that, despite the fact there have been tensions between the two children, it is vital that they remain together as their sibling bond is important and if placed for adoption it is the only link they would have with their blood relatives. She goes on:

“Although the foster carer thought that [Person A] may thrive in placement where she is the only child and I appreciate that a joint placement is likely to pose challenges, one must weigh against this as psychological harm may be caused by separating these two young children with the sense of loss and potential risk of depression and anxiety in later life.”

When I look at the harm that they have suffered or at risk of suffering the threshold is very clearly made out and [Person A]’s early experiences have been harmful. The number of moves have been harmful. The psychologist was clear that the children’s behaviour was due to a combination of these factors and she was unable to attribute the harm that they may have suffered due to any specific placement and said that none of the adults were malign in their intentions.

I look at the harm that the children are at risk of suffering in the future arising out of domestic abuse. Of course, by virtue of s.3 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 [Person A] is treated as a victim of domestic abuse in her own right having been exposed to those early childhood experiences of volatility.

In the last addendum assessment of [Person C], the assessor notes that she is still in touch with [Person D] and at a very early stage of reflecting on that relationship. [Person C]’s early statements do not accept that he was physically abusive to her. She accepts he shot an air gun at her, attempted to push her down the stairs and stabbed her with a tail comb leaving a scar. He also called her names, but she did not see this as domestic abuse and saw it as normal. She was able to reflect on this with the final assessor and said that she had not engaged in domestic abuse work as she did not think it was needed before, but now she thinks it is.

[Person C] told the court that she had visited [Person D] twice in prison with the last time in Summer 2024 and, as recently as last Monday, he called her about ten times and then got his cousin to call her when she did not answer. I note that [Person C]’s first statement says that knives and cannabis were found at the [redacted person’s] home where [Person D] and [Person A] were on occasion. [Person C] says that [Person D] calls again and again and that ten missed calls was not unusual.

The parenting assessor considered the between her relationship with [Person C]’s relationship with [Person I] and [Person D]. She says:

“There is a significant amount of undoing required to address these ingrained patterns. The process will necessitate targeted interventions including therapeutic work to address her childhood trauma and mental health difficulties and specific one to one domestic abuse work. Without such an intervention the risk is that [Person C] will repeat abusive relationship patterns. Whether with [Person D] or a new partner, the risk remains high.”

In the witness box, the assessor expanded on this. She explained that [Person C] was still in touch and spoke to [Person D] several times a day at the time of that assessment. The assessor said it was concerning that [Person C] was still in touch with the father, given the length of the proceedings and the lived experience of the children. She said it is not just about doing the Freedom Programme. That would not in and of itself prevent someone from returning to an abusive partner. She said it is about [Person C]’s unmet needs and emotional needs and her internal model used in aggressive and volatile situations. She needs counselling to reduce the risk of returning to abusive relationships as well as the Freedom Programme and she was clear that mother needs to break the attachment to [Person D] and remove herself entirely from that relationship. She said it is not just about domestic abuse in romantic relationships, but of concern was the family relationships too.

[Person E] told the court that she thought [Person C] put the phone down on [Person D] because he is controlling and that [Person C] was struggling to move on because [Person D] was her first love and, “when you are in love with somebody and they disrespect you, you forgive them and they will say they will change but they do it again and again”.

[Person C] told me that [Person D] would tell her he did not want her to go out and wanted her to be home at a certain time and that the last time he said this was a few weeks ago or maybe a month, but it made her feel controlled. She thought, when she got a new boyfriend, he would have something to say about it and not like it. When asked if he might find someone to be violent to her if she got a new boyfriend, she said “maybe”.

The social worker also gave evidence consistent with the parenting assessor that, at her time of doing one to one work with [Person C]in Autumn 2024, [Person C] was speaking to [Person D] more than twice a day. There have been times, she said, when she is been in-between and [Person D] has sent [Person C] with messages to tell me and I have passed them back and then she is come back with responses. She said that those messages were in January 2025. She said it may not be a physical relationship, but it is a psychological and emotional relationship.

It seems to me that even [Person D]’s murder conviction has not enabled [Person C] to draw a clear line under the relationship and the impact of [Person D]’s views is still felt from afar. He has a long reach and, in my view, still exercises a degree of control over [Person C] and there is a risk, if [Person C] found a new partner, [Person D] may send somebody to be violent and I have little confidence that [Person C] would pick up a controlling dynamic in a new relationship given the early stage she is at of understanding domestic abuse.

In relation to [Person E], the assessor gave evidence that she believed [Person E] when she described experiencing 24 years of domestic abuse at the hands of [Person I]. However, when she spoke to [Person I], he told the assessor there was no domestic abuse. In my view, that denial heightens the risk. She was concerned to hear that [Person I] was part of the support network put forward by the family and that the way he spoke to his children could be replicated in the way he might speak to [Person A] and [Person B]. She was concerned that [Person E] minimised risks and showed a lack of insight as to whether she could protect [Person A and B]. She accepted that [Person I]’s risk was formally unassessed but was clear that based on the information given to her from [Person E] he remained a risk.

[Person E] has a history of making relationship choices that put her at risk. In addition to [Person I], there was [Person J] who was with her at the age when [Person G] was 16 to 17. [Person E] reports that [Person J] was flirtatious with [Person G] and said he would have a relationship with her when she turned 18 which he did and the police evidence suggests he was violent to [Person E] and [Person G] which [Person E] confirmed in the witness box.

[Person E] was not open with the assessor that she was in an on-off relationship with [Person K] during the time of the assessment. Now it might have been off at the time that [Person E] spoke to the assessor, but she should have updated her rather than giving the impression that she was single and the assessor gave evidence that had she not heard [Person K] in the background when he was speaking she would not have found out that he was in a relationship with Person E. The choices made by Person E in the past have exposed the children to sexual risk. There was [Person M] who had a criminal record for sexual abuse of a minor and [Person J] appears to have groomed [Person G] to an extent and expressed a sexual interest in an underage girl.

I look at the risk of harm arising from fragile mental health and the children will be at risk of harm if the adults around them cannot contain and manage their own emotions. In the final parenting assessments, [Person C] shared with the assessor that she struggles with managing stress and described herself as easily irritable, prone to being snappy and experienced mood swings. She said that controlling her emotions is often challenging for her. She is taking Sertraline for diagnosed anxiety and depression. She told the assessor the girls were not able to anticipate which version of [Person C] they might get. [Person C] accepted that having somebody to talk to might be beneficial to her.

[Person E]’s medical records suggest that she has a long history of anxiety and depression going back many years and that she is on a high maintenance dose of Sertraline. The assessor says she is waiting for trauma-based clinical support. [Person E] reports that she believes she has OCD because she is extremely clean and is always on her toes cleaning the house.

Neither [Person E] nor [Person C] have had specialist therapeutic input by way of talking therapies and the risk of them being emotionally overwhelmed, therefore, is relatively high; indeed, some of the evidence of [Person E]’s reactions and ability to cope with the children on extended contacts shows a high level of stress at times.

Of course, children are put at risk by parents using drugs and [Person C] has had clean tests since November 2022 and that is really to her credit. But when she spoke to the final assessor, she expressed uncertainty about whether she could go back to using cannabis, recognising it would be easy to fall into old patterns. This suggests, said the assessor, that, while she has managed to stop using cannabis, she is aware of her vulnerability to relapse especially when facing stressful situations. When asked about the impact on children of parental substance misuse, [Person C] told the assessor she was unsure of this only that professionals have told her it is a bad thing, however, she does not understand why.

The assessor in the witness box commended [Person C] for not using cannabis for two and a half years, but she says the reason she raised substance misuse in the report was because of [Person C]’s unresolved trauma and mental health needs. She said it is about developing a healthy coping mechanism and that maladaptive coping mechanisms remain a risk if she does not have someone she can turn to.

The family dynamic of the broader maternal family is also something that puts the children at future risk of harm and, indeed, it has harmed them in the past. It is clear from the threshold document that family life with [Person C], [Person E] and the other daughters is tense and volatile at times and what came through very powerfully in the witness box from both [Person C] and [Person E] was how the family conflict is still live and ongoing and how this family are enmeshed together. This is a long-standing problem. When speaking to the psychologist pre-proceedings, [Person C] said her sisters tend to clash when they spend too much time together. She added the same happens with Person E who starts for no reason and the evidence of both [Person E] and [Person C] even now is still of a high level of conflict.

When the assessor visited [Person E] in January 2025, she formed the view that she was scared of her daughters. In my professional observation, she said, [Person E] presented as vulnerable, hopeless and helpless, and was extremely upset while repeatedly saying her daughters will gang up on her if she is not successful to get the children. She explored why [Person E] was feeling she was being put under pressure and [Person E] said she was not, but her whole demeanour and presentation said otherwise: “It is my professional observation that her presentation suggested she is terrified of her daughters and the consequences if the court decision goes against her”.

The assessor heard recordings which [Person E] played her of the daughters shouting and, although she told the assessor that the children were no longer living in the home and are grown up, the assessor was concerned when she heard the recording that the dynamic had not changed and that the girls posed a threat to [Person E]. She said she heard shouting and screaming in the recording and gave clear evidence that [Person E] was terrified. When she spoke to [Person E] a couple of days later, [Person E] said she could not remember the recording and that she had deleted it so the assessor was concerned about her ability to be open and honest and protect [Persons A and B] from this dynamic.

In the witness box, [Person E] said she accepted she did not tell the assessor the full extent of the difficulties and that the police were called out because her daughters were attacking her or because [Person C] and [Person Q] were in physical fights. The assessor thought that [Person E] minimised the difficulties and [Person E] was able to accept in the witness box the police disclosures suggested there were lots of reasons that the police were called out and it was not just about [Person C] and [Person D]. [Person E] did not deny in court that she was scared of her daughters and she said it was not [Person C] but the others.

[Person I] has also been a perpetrator of domestic abuse on [Person E] which is really serious. Although [Person E] might not see him face to face, he is still a powerful force in the family. During the course of the hearing, [Person P] received a phone call from him when she was at [Person E]’s house one evening and [Person E] said that when he thought that [Person E] was getting involved [Person I] called her a “fat cunt” and she says he tells the girls that she is a liar about domestic abuse and that [Person I] used to call the girls slags, whores and say they should go and get raped. [Person C] said that him speaking to them like that was normal.

[Person C] remembers when [Person I] hit her at which when she was at primary school and [Person E] gave evidence of an occasion when he shut the bedroom door and told the girls he was going to finish her off. [Person C] said she remembered this and a time when he threw tea or coffee at their [Person E] and called her names and nasty things.

[Person E] told me a couple of months back he put a knife to [Person P] and [Person G]. [Person E] did not tell the police because [Person G] did not want her to tell them. She told me he put his hands on [Person G] on occasion and she said: “I do not trust him to be around Person A and B to be fair”. She said, if he knew she was having contact with [Person A] and [Person B] post adoption, he would probably turn up.

[Person C] thought that [Person I] could see the girls with a support worker there or something, but then later in her evidence accepted that he was dangerous because when he gets angry he can be really aggressive. She currently goes round to [Person I]’s once a week and when she was in foster care she stayed with him for the weekend. She seemed to have a growing acceptance that he might be a risk to the girls, but this was at the very early stage of realisation and in fact throughout the proceedings the family have included him without any mention of ongoing concerns and he attended contact in October 2024.

Further, he attended a number of family group conferences: He attended one in January 2021 when the family were recorded having agreed that [Person A] can go to his house on a Sunday and he would offer help bathing her and keeping her happy and healthy. The family collectively agreed at that conference, “If there were any safeguarding concerns, we would all report [Person A]’s safety to her social worker”. In September 2023, it was recorded that [Person E] and [Person I] will take turns in caring for the children and [Person I] will collect them from the childminder’s. In May 2024 and in September 2024 at family group conference, [Person I] is there offering to support [Person E] and none of the family’s members suggest that this is any way inappropriate for him to take this role. The family group conference notes talk of the family members working together to support each other and collaborating but this is in stark contrast to the evidence given to me by [Person E] and [Person C] in court of a family which is highly emotionally charged, dysfunctional and in which [Person I] is still abusive.

[Person C] and [Person E] have a good relationship and they have been seen to work well together and, on occasion, the floating support worker notes [Person C] seems to get stressed or agitated and could be short when speaking to Person E, but she recommends that they can learn to work together without discussing things in front of the children. So although [Person E] and [Person C] are not maybe naturally argumentative in nature, they are enmeshed with a number of family members who are violent and volatile and argumentative and they get drawn in. [Person P] was coming to stay with [Person C] last week because she could not return to her dad’s and [Person C] was added to a video call with her sisters last week when [Person P] and her dad fell out. I have already talked about [Person E] getting drawn into [Person P]’s call with her [Person I] and [Person G] in the past has become irate when not allowed to see the children in contact in July 2024.[ Person G] called the police in December 2024 and the social work emergency team in October 2024.[ Person G] has texted [Person C] in the past saying she is not a good mum and that [Person C] will end up killing herself because she cannot look after her children. Although [Person C] says this has not happened in 2025, it is all very raw and recent and, as [Person C] says, “[Person G] does what she wants” and the evidence suggests it can be very disruptive.

[Person C] and [Person E]’s understanding of the impact of all of this on the girls was not well developed. Despite accepting that her parents’ relationship was abusive, [Person C] still thought that [Person E] could keep the girls safe. There is still live drama in this family and neither [Person E] nor [Person C] have managed to put enough distance between themselves and other family members which still poses a risk of harm to the girls. When I look at the impact of the past harm on the children, the psychologist says this:

“Undoubtedly, [Person A] has suffered emotionally by exposure to unpredictable and violent environments. Although not able to articulate it, [Person A] has not been able to trust family members to prioritise her needs. I expect [Person A]’s emotions are so raw that the slightest provocation can activate an angry outburst. I am in no doubt that [Person A] in particular has been emotionally damaged by her past experience and domestic instability, having no sense of permanency or genuine trust of the adults around her.”

The psychologist also looks at the risk of harm if the children are placed outside the family and “severing ties with the family would also be harmful”, says the psychologist. If a family placement is not considered viable and adoption is the preferred outcome, it is going to be very shocking for [Person A] and [Person B] who have, from their perspective given their ages, happy times with their family too and may be unaware of any shortcomings. So there is a risk of harm arising out of a number of options before the court.

I look at how capable the parents are and of other family members of meeting the children’s needs. So here is a list of family members who have been assessed:

The Guardian’s evidence, which I accept, is that there have been significant periods within these proceedings where [Person A] and [Person B] have been cared for by family members. There have been family group conferences. But despite the involvement of so many family members, ultimately, there have been at times a lack of genuine commitment to the children in the long term, particularly after [Person O] was unable to care for [Person A] and [Person B]. This was particularly true of the paternal family members and, unfortunately, due to family members’ ambiguous positions, this has caused considerable delay in these proceedings.

[Person E] was put forward late as a potential carer and, given the gravity of decisions I have to make, I allowed her assessment. But it does not seem credible to me when she says that she was unaware of proceedings, given she was at a family group conference in January 2021 where it is minuted that there is an interim care order and the Local Authority have started proceedings. It records there that she will be offered a viability assessment if [Person C] cannot care for [Person A]. Further, in September 2023 [Person E] attended another family group conference and said she would be the appropriate carer if [Person F] could not care for the children. So it is fair to say that, collectively, the behaviour of both families has led to delay and repeated uncertainty for the girls. At my direction, letters were sent to all family members who have ever expressed an interest in caring for the girls last summer to explain there will be no further assessments and I am satisfied that everyone has had a fair opportunity to be assessed.

In relation to [Person C], there are lots of good things about her parenting. She has been to every single one of the 19 court hearings; she shows a real commitment to her girls. She has engaged in assessments, hair strand testing and video interactive guidance. Her affection and warmth have been seen by everyone who has worked with her. She has had clear hair strand tests since November 2022. There are no reports of her being under the influence. There is no evidence of recent police call-outs to the family homes. She has a one-bed flat which is clean and tidy and well looked after.

There have been a number of PAMS assessments of [Person C] and, given the volume of the evidence, I think it is right that I do summarise each one. The initial PAMS assessment was dated March 2022 and highlighted strengths but also concerns in [Person C]’s parenting capacity. It acknowledged warm and loving relationships between [Person C] and [Person A], but emphasised the need for further assessments and support particularly in relation to the risks identified. The assessor recommended that [Person A] could be placed in [Person C]’s care in the community with a transition plan and a supervision order. [Person C]’s advocate, Ms B, was invited to those assessments but [Person C] said she did not need her there.

The first addendum report is dated 14^th March 2022 in which the assessor considered the psychological assessment which recommended the family’s transition to the community as well as other recommendations like further hair strand testing, but the assessor thought that the family’s community transition could begin.

There was another addendum assessment on 27^th May 2022. At that one, [Person C] had her advocate at the assessment sessions and the report highlights the areas of increased risk; that [Person C] had not been open about her relationship with [Person D], who by that stage was on remand for murder. The assessor was worried she was pregnant around Christmas 2021, but did not tell the social worker until March 2022 and did not appreciate the risks that her family or [Person D] caused her.

The video interactive guidance is in November and December 2022 and sees that [Person C] is very attuned to [Person A]. She is a quiet, attentive mother with the ability to change her parenting approach to meet the different needs of her children.

There is another addendum assessment in February 2023 prepared after considering the video interactive guidance and meeting [Person C] four more times with her advocates. That noted [Person C]’s parenting confidence had grown in some areas, but her lack of engagement with the Sycamore Trust and her own therapy compromised the children’s welfare. There were concerns that she was not sticking to the Working Together Agreement, which required her to get [Person A] to nursery consistently. There were also concerns that she was vulnerable from messaging from the wider family who were fuelling tension in [Person C]’s working relationship with the foster carer. The assessor concluded that [Person C] would not be able to provide good enough care for [Person A] and [Person B] in the community.

The next addendum dated 30^th January 2024 indicated that [Person C] had shown some positive engagement but significant concerns persisted about her insight, ability to prioritise the children’s needs and capacity for change. [Person C] did not contact her advocate for help, despite being asked to by the assessor.

The addendum report dated 14^th March 2024 concluded that [Person C] did not have sufficient capacity to safely parent and meet the long term needs [Person A] and [Person B]. That report did not recommend a return to [Person A]’s care and advised that alternative plans should be progressed.

The final parent assess report concludes that:

“[Person C] has demonstrated emotional warmth towards her children. Her ability to meet their holistic needs remains limited at this juncture. Her cognitive difficulties, mental health difficulties and history of trauma significantly impact her parenting capacity. She struggles to manage both children’s needs simultaneously and provide consistent structure and boundaries. She has shown improved engagement during this assessment and a willingness to engage in further interventions. This may potentially improve her ability to meet her children’s needs in the longer term, but it is crucial to consider that court proceedings have been going on for over two years and these children require permanency. The level of care that [Person C] can currently provide is unable to meet the children’s need. They require parenting that goes beyond typical standards.

So [Person C] has had an opportunity over a period of years to show a change in her approach to parenting, to accept help and to make difficult choices, and all the parenting assessments have noted a continuing pattern of concerns. [Person C] argues that she has not had the support that she needed to make changes, so I look at what support she has been offered.

In relation to drugs and alcohol, the social worker shared that [Person C] made a self-referral to a recovery service in [redacted] on 7^th January 2025. That is very positive, but too soon for real work to have been completed.

In relation to domestic abuse programmes, a referral was made for [Person C] in September 2021 and she did not engage with that programme. In October 2021, she was put back on a waiting list for January 2022. She then moved to [redacted]. She was provided with a £14 voucher to access the programme online and registration details were shared with her. She was encouraged to get family support for that registration. The social worker gave evidence that they would have offered her support if she had asked for it and the Guardian’s view was that [Person C] is able to log on to internet courses.

The Sycamore Trust in 2022/23 provided one to one work with [Person C] in foster care, but the assessor - who I read as being highly attuned to [Person C]’s learning needs - said that:

“If the work was to continue, then [Person C] would need to and want to engage with the service. I do feel there is more work to be done with [Person C], but the engagement is not there and it would be very hard to continue.”

A referral was made in January 2022 for Mellow Mums. In March 2022, she was contacted by the course facilitator offering a course in May 2022. However, by this time [Person C] was pregnant and she was not able to go to that course. She was then offered Mellow Bumps.

A referral was made to Sycamore in October 2023 to support [Person C] after which she was allocated a worker, but the allocated worker left the service and [Person C] was put back on the waiting list. The funding for Sycamore was then stopped.

A referral was made to [redacted] Parenting Team when [Person C] gave her consent in February 2024. The previous allocated social worker chased this and, in June 2024, had still heard nothing from [redacted]. [Person C] was advised to expect contact from [redacted] as they may get in touch directly. She was enrolled in Strengthening Families in December 2024, but, due to low numbers, they had to cancel the programme. But it is noted that [Person C] did not attend any of the sessions prior to it being cancelled.

In November 2024, [redacted] reported they have made efforts to engage [Person C] for at least a year. She had been invited to programmes in the past including two short programmes, an introduction to Strengthening Families and Strengthening Communities, which she did not attend. Since then, [redacted] offered [Person C] a parenting programme beginning in January 2025. She and [Person E] went to three out of the seven sessions and the social worker said in her final evidence that that was incomplete and she would have failed the course.

The social worker looked into family systemic therapy, but, when [Person E]’s assessment came back negatively, they paused that referral. They encouraged [Person C] to talk to her GP for talking therapies and I note right back at the beginning of proceedings there was an IAPT appointment that [Person C] missed, according to the psychologist.

This social worker did one to one work with [Person C] during the Autumn 2024. The social worker’s evidence is that [Person C] seemed unable to fully reflect on her parenting and the impact of this on her children, unable to acknowledge how her parenting has caused trauma and accepts little responsibility blaming professionals and others. In the witness box, the social worker did positively say that [Person C] had built a good relationship with her.

[Person C]’s position is that she has not been offered support and it is fair to say that funding has not always made this easy. But the independent social worker who did the bulk of the assessment concludes that:

“[Person C] has not been proactive engaging with her advocate to recommend the support areas. [Person C] has had sight of previous reports completed which detail recommendations for support. I am aware these have been discussed with her advocate and I worry that her motivation may be undermined by her lack of acceptance of the risks set out.”

The final parenting assessor who looked at things with a fresh pair of eyes also took the view that [Person C] had been offered adequate support:

“There is nothing that has not been done. I think I went over and beyond. I ignore my calls and I would call her again. I was persistent. But what I did may be different and the difficulties are not due to a lack of support. All the support has been offered and [Person C]’s readiness and timing has played a part in where she is at. From my perspective, the support has already been put in.”

It has been argued on behalf of [Person C] that it is insufficient to tell [Person C] to simply see a GP or log on to the Freedom programme. For some time during these proceedings [Person C] had an advocate who could have helped with this, but [Person C] does not seem to have asked the social worker herself for extra support and I note that we have had six family group conferences between 2021 and 2024 at which family members repeatedly offer to help [Person C]. For example, on 20^th January 2021:

“We can all help [Person C] with documents, paperwork and reminder of appointments. [Person Q] can help [Person C] engage in courses by taking her and helping her throughout.”

Likewise, in March 2023:

“We will all help remind [Person C] of appointments. We’ll encourage [Person C] to note them down and put them in her calendar. All the family will engage with [Person C] to make sure she engages with services.”

There are similar comments throughout other family group conferences.

Ms K was clear that the Freedom programme, counselling and systemic family therapy are needed and that there is a lot of work to be done in order to make placement with [Person C] a safe option and that she would need to have the children return to her on a staged basis once she has shown a commitment to putting her learning into practice and there would need to be evidence for a period of time of change.

I look at [Person C]’s ability to work with professionals and I know that she is had four different social workers and that it is difficult for her to build relationships because she is very anxious around people. The VIG report notes that there is a difference between [Person C]’s interactions with professionals which are reserved and those which are observed with the children. [Person C] may be guarded to the point of hyper-vigilance in the presence of the professionals, but she is more accessible to her children. Other assessors, like the first psychologist, found her guarded. That was not an assessment the last parenting assessor disagreed with, but she did highlight [Person C]’s cognitive profile.

The final assessor said she built a good working relationship with [Person C] but that was because she went over and above to help [Person C] and [Person C] struggles with being told what to do. The allocated social worker doing one to one work said that she had built a good working relationship with [Person C], but [Person C] seems to have a patchy ability to work with others. So the clear patterns in relation to [Person C]’s parenting across the evidence are: A lack of clear and consistent boundaries for the children; a patchy ability to work with professionals; a tendency sometimes to blame others so, for example, 21^st January this year when she sent a text to the social worker accusing her of traumatising the children. The final assessor said that [Person C] was able to reflect on her children’s lived experiences, but this shift in her ability to do so is still at an early stage. There is a failure to make use of all the services and the support that she is been offered. There is acknowledgment from [Person C] herself that managing her emotions has been challenging at times. There is the maternal family whose involvement has not been constructive or supportive of the work of the social work team, for example, the social worker was told by one of the foster carers that they heard [Person C]’s sisters negatively speaking about them and the maternal family, for example, arranged a private pregnancy screen rather than telling [Person C] to be open and honest and tell the social worker. There is the drawing of the children into an adult world of conflict through the exposure to the wider maternal family and also to [Person D]. There is an incident in the foster carer work notes 2024 when [Person A] says: “Shut up” and tells the foster carer, “[Person D] says that”. When the foster carer says, “How do you know that [Person D] said shut up?” The response was that he said shut up when he was on the phone speaking to [Person C].

There are struggles with the relationship with [Person D] setting clear boundaries in place and ending that and there has been inconsistent contact, so, from April 2024 to February 2025, 21 cancellations out of 70 sessions. There have been periods of consistency but this has not always been maintained and, when [Person C] does not turn up, this has a real impact on the girls. For example, the pre-adoption medical sets out that there is a deterioration in [Person A]’s behaviour the day after [Person C] misses a contact and the impact of cancelled contact is also highlighted in a psychological report where [Person A] shared that she did not believe [Person C] as unwell when she did not turn up for contact. The evidence given by the psychologist is that this suggested that [Person A] cannot trust [Person C] to be there when she expects her to be.

Looking at [Person E]’s assessment, there are very positive things about [Person E] too. She has engaged openly in attended sessions. She has been able to reflect on painful past relationships. She cares for the children and has been able to look back at her own parenting of her girls. She is warm and loving towards the children and motivated to provide a home for them. She is honest and brave when coming to court. But there again, there are patterns across the evidence in relation to [Person E] that show the following: She struggles to implement effective boundaries, both for her children and actually her daughters. An example of this is when [Person C] was able to attend early for a session in December 2024 and then, when [Person C] did join, [Person E] took a back seat according to the notes taken which might suggest that she struggles putting boundaries around [Person C]. The assessor notes that:

“[Person E] has been struggling to navigate the complex and competing needs of the children and it is evident that there are ongoing concerns about her inability to consistently enforce boundaries and ensure appropriate limits are put in place. She has struggled to build confidence in order to take control of her parenting role and gives in and tends to compensate when the children push boundaries.”

Looking across the contact notes, there are occasions where [Person E]does not need help with boundaries. But overall, the pattern is she really needs help setting boundaries and does not do so consistently. [Person E] accepts that [Person A] can be challenging. “She can be challenging with me and [Person C]”, she says. “She thinks we’re playing games, but we’re not”.

The contact notes show that [Person E] had a floating support worker on hand for the extended contact in her house and the Guardian reminded me that the role of this worker was to do the one to one work with [Person E] to transition the children into her care and she was there to support and prompt and smooth the way and flag any issues. It is clear from the floating support worker’s recommendations there is still a lot of work to be done.

The Guardian’s own observations of contact were that she was left with significant concerns about [Person E]’s ability to parent [Person A] and [Person B], even to meet their basic needs let alone their complex needs, and she appeared to not plan any activities and disconnect throughout with the children expected to entertain themselves. The Guardian discussed these observations with the family support worker and, had been so concerned about the contact sessions, she contacted the allocated social worker.

In relation to that difficulty in putting boundaries in place, [Person E]’s relationship with her own grown-up children and her vulnerabilities about pressure being placed on her are issues I have already explored her cognitive ability and the impact of that on her ability to care for the children and balance everything. She has not always been willing to engage in parenting and domestic abuse work. She told me very honestly in the witness box that the therapeutic help she had had to date did not help her because she did not really want to talk about domestic abuse, which is entirely understandable when it is so very painful. She has not shown consistent and effective change. The assessor is worried about her honesty - I have already talked about the example of finding out about [Person K] - and the assessor said in the witness box “there is a lack of transparency and honesty For example, the recordings and then retracting what she said to me, the representation of her daughters having changed when they have not and talking about domestic abuse and then questioning why she needed to do the course”. I have already referred to that history of abusive or dysfunctional relationships and there are times when [Person E] can struggle with her own emotions and the assessor saw her very distressed emotionally when she thought she had failed an assessment. So really, [Person E] is a very vulnerable lady who does not have the emotional resources to help [Person A and B ]manage their emotions.

In addition to that, the agency medical advisor explicitly advised on two occasions that [Person E] taking on that role of Special Guardian was difficult due to her health needs. Her health may impact her ability to provide long term consistent and physically active care to the girls. She is, for example, on Pregabalin for back pain and a high maintenance dose of Sertraline. She has not had the trauma-based counselling she is been advised to have and I have already mentioned her concerns about OCD.

So when thinking about [Person E], it is important to look at her cognitive skills, her overall physical and mental health and her relationships with her family members. [Person A] and [Person B] pose significant challenges for any caregiver and they need better than average parenting and the evidence suggests that [Person E] and indeed [Person C] cannot provide that.

In relation to [Person F] , I just note by way of background that the girls have been having overnight contact once a month with the paternal family and there is some ambiguity about the role of [Person D] in their lives. For example, the children are speaking to [Person D] at [Person F]’s, [Person A] states, and it is recorded that she told the social worker that [Person A] and [Person B] speak to their [Person D] by telephone which is facilitated by [Person F] On one occasion, [Person A] tells someone that [ Person D] lives in Africa and pretends on a play phone to have a conversation with him. The social worker said:

“I remember hearing that [Person D] at the hearing in January said he had spoken with the girls and so I was given the job to investigate. I called [Person H] and she said that had never happened and she did not understand why [Person D] would say that.”

She also spoke to [Person F] who said it had never happened and she is not on speaking terms with [Person D] since he is in prison. [Person H] says she knows what that means for the children, she would not let it happen. But the children clearly have got an awareness of their father and there is a real ambiguity about whether they have been speaking to him across the evidence and there is a need for really good life story work to help them understand where he is and why.

When I look at the ability of [Person F] to care for the children, [Person F] made an application on Friday, 28^th March 2025 and came to court that very afternoon. She wrote a witness statement and spoke to me saying that she is now ready to care for the children. Her application is opposed by the Local Authority and the Guardian; [Person C] is neutral on it and [Person E] thinks it may be better for the children than being adopted.

By way of background, I have set out how the children came to live with [Person F] when [Person O] was no longer able to care for them and that the social worker said this was not agreed in advance. I have also set out the high level of support that [Person F] had and at one point [Person F] was joined to proceedings as a party, although she never instructed a solicitor to come to court for her. I recorded on the face of my order of 28^th June 2024 that I heard from the [Person F] who had put herself forward to care for the children but acknowledged that given her work commitment she was not able to do so in the short, medium, or long term. The court therefore discharged her from proceedings and this was supported by the Local Authority and the Guardian.

The Guardian gave very compelling evidence about her involvement with the paternal family. All of this, I think, happening outside court. She said:

“I told her to get legal support. I was doing everything possible as a Guardian to encourage her, but that commitment was not there. I had lengthy discussions with her at court and she was very conflicted. She struggled. She was in two minds about whether she wanted to maintain her job and she felt very pressured by [Person L]. She wanted to put [Person F] forward. But she has been dishonest. She shared she was not getting the time off from work, but also said her employers had a scheme which would give her time off work. She called her manager in my presence who said she could take the time off, but the message she gave me was she could not. They have known about the alternative plans and this application now is trying to derail this for the children and it is vital they have permanence and no more delay.”

There are positive things in [Person F]’s assessment. It is clear she can meet some of the children’s basic care needs, the children are clean and well fed. But the assessment concludes negatively and the following factors are material: That [Person F] appears overwhelmed; that she did not have a developed appreciation of the impact of the difficult start the girls had had in life on them. The assessor was concerned about the way boundaries were set. [Person F] does not respond promptly to text or telephone calls from the Local Authority. Their house was overcrowded; I heard evidence from [Person F] that had not changed. [Person F] was not seen to be emotionally warm. She did not trust the social worker and accused them of lying. She was not forthcoming with all the information asked for by the assessor and she did not speak in a child-focused way, for example, telling the girls, if they do not behave, they cannot see their mum and speaking in front [Person A] about how hard it has been having the girls and that she cannot just go out and do what she wants. She was defensive when the social worker tried to help. She left the girls in [Person C]’s sole care in breach of a working together agreement and, at the time of the assessment, she was supporting [Person D] in his appeal and believed him to be innocent.

In [Person F]’s statement, she sets out all of the aspects of the assessment she does not agree with and does not accept. But [Person F] has not met the children’s needs for continuity and commitment to date and she now wishes to do so. She is now a qualified [profession redacted] and wishes to care for them. However, her emergence at the late stage of these proceedings suggests that she may have a limited understanding of how much these children need permanence and stability and I will look at the option of adjournment in my overall global analysis later in the judgment.

I look at the Adoption and Children Act 2002. When making a decision about adoption of a child, the paramount consideration is the child’s welfare throughout their life. If I conclude that a placement order accords with child’s welfare, I will then have to determine whether their welfare requires me to dispense with the consent of the parents in making such an order and, in addressing this issue, I have reminded myself of Re P (Placement Orders: Parental Consent) [2008] EWCA Civ. 535.

In relation to s.1(4) of the Adoption and Children Act, I am content I have dealt with paragraphs (a), (d) and (e) and I will now look at paragraphs (b), (c) and (f). In relation to the children’s particular needs, here the psychologist says that those caring for the children report that they are physically and emotionally draining. “It is unrelenting”, says their previous foster carer. The previous foster carer says she was able to take three children to the park, but now she would not risk it as [Person A] would run off and [Person B] would copy her. [Person A] needs sessions of play therapy at school and has now been provided with further therapeutic support from a trainee integrative child psychotherapist.

The psychologist says that, due to multiple placement moves, [Person A] and [Person B] have a weakened sense of identity. Each family they have lived with has its own unique way of family life and culture requiring them to constantly adapt. To help them develop a strong sense of self, they need a stable and supportive environment with caregivers who can help them understand their background and build a secure family structure. They have experienced multiple losses, including rejection by assessed family members, and further instability could reinforce feelings of abandonment. Both these children have a particular need for permanence and stability and it is essential, says the assessor, that these young girls should be settled in a permanent home as a matter of urgency. If their case is allowed to drift further, there is every likelihood that their documented emotional and behavioural difficulties will be exacerbated.

The Guardian too was crystal clear that she thought the girls needed permanency as a matter of urgency:

“Both children present with challenging behaviour as documented in many reports. It will be important for future carers to be patient and nurturing and adhere to appropriate rules and expectations. The caregivers will need to be sensitive to the children’s emotional and behavioural difficulties, prepared to talk respectfully about their birth family and welcome them into a new family.”

“It is important that children are not pathologized”, the psychologist said.

“In my opinion, the behavioural difficulties are a result of neglectful and inconsistent parenting rather than any disorder within the child.”

In the witness box, the psychologist was clear that the children’s needs for permanence overrode the desirability of [Person A] keeping the same therapist, although it would be ideal if she could.

I look at the likely effect of the children having ceased being a member of the original family and become adopted persons. Of course, the severance of legal ties with birth family is lifelong and fundamental. A limited relationship with the birth family would flow post-adoption with maybe direct contact once a year and letter box contact. It is a lifelong decision that will affect the children’s sense of identity as they grow up. It would extinguish the parental responsibility of the parents. They would be treated in law as children of an adopted family. That has an impact on succession, inheritance and many other rights. It is a potential to impact on their identity, their self-worth and self-image. The psychologist said that the children have a clear knowledge of [Person C] , [Person E] and members of the paternal family and probably a strong affection for all these individuals. Adoption will be a distressing and puzzling thing for the children, who have no understanding why they have been separated from those they love. This issue must be handled sensitively in a child-centred manner, to minimise their sense of loss and build on hopes for the future. If separation must occur, it should happen soon before they gain a greater cognisance. The family dynamics are such it may be difficult for them to support their children in saying their goodbyes and the children, especially [Person A], may always retain a sense of loss.

I look at the relationship the children have with their relatives and the value of those continuing. Of course, there is a value in these children knowing their birth family, who are warm and supportive in their time with the girls. There is a value in their sibling relationship. The risk of separation is one that is real if an adoptive placement could not be found for them both. They have had overnight staying contact with the paternal family and [Person A] says, “I like to sleep at Grandma’s house with Uncle [redacted] and Aunty [redacted]” and she talks of [redacted uncle] tickling them and “We used to live with them”, she says. The psychologist concludes that [Person A] and [Person B] have meaningful relationships with [Person C and Person E], although attachment is insecure.

Taking a step back and looking at the global holistic analysis balancing all the options for the children and comparing the realistic possibilities for the children’s future, I look at the following: For the option of placing with [Person E] and [Person C], a number of measures could be taken to support them; systemic family therapy could be provided, one to one work offered on family dynamics, play therapy for the girls, family support workers which could start at a high level say twice a day, video interactive guidance could be used again. The social worker accepted that support could be provided for the children’s minority, school and nursery would be a safety net with professionals involved to provide respite for the carers, there could be a written agreement, there is the support of the paternal family, there could be announced and unannounced visits and there could be non-molestation orders.

Against this, the systemic family therapy will only help if the maternal family are open to engaging with it and, though [Person E] and [Person C] might be at this point, there is no evidence anybody else is. [Person C] has not seen the need for such support in the past, there is an early stage of change, and written agreements have not always been followed in the past like the children having unsupervised contact when they were in [Person F]’s care and the support put in place in the past has not always brought about change. Both [Person E] and [Person C] have had one to one work at various stages and both [Person E] and [Person C] accept that they are not ready for the children to come home and it would take a couple of months and the barriers, I think, in accepting support are not so much cognitive but cultural. The Guardian was clear that the cognitive difficulties [Person C] has are not such that she is incapable of getting online to do a course, but this has been a very dysfunctional family for a long time and they are only at the early stage of realising what they need to do for the children and much domestic abuse and volatility has been normalised.

In addition to this, I look specifically at [Person C]. The positive things about her are that she loves the children and it is clear that this is the case to everyone who has assessed her. She is warm and she plays with them. She has clean and appropriate housing. [Person A] could stay at the same school and finish therapy. [Person C] has been drug-free for a while now. She is willing to do domestic abuse work. She would maintain links with the paternal family. She could have a written agreement not to see her sisters or have her dad around. We could put a non-molestation order in place. She is got the support of the paternal family and [Person E] and she can work well with some professionals.

Against this, I weigh the fact that [Person C] is at an early stage of change. She did not think for a long time she needed domestic abuse work or counselling and she spoke of the relationship with her family and domestic abuse to the most recent assessor and in the witness box, but it is very early days. There have been issues with inconsistent contact and, although it has improved at times, that remains a pattern. I think it would be hard for [Person C] to call the police or stick to a written agreement because her family has some very strong characters and all are enmeshed together. It would put her in a really difficult position. The paternal family who support her have not been consistent and [Person C] described her relationship with [Person F] as on and off. She is had one to one work with the social workers and is still not ready for the girls to come home now. She does not find it easy to work with everyone and her engagement with professionals has been patchy. There would be delay and a period of testing if the children return to [Person C] and [Person E], who would support [Person C], is vulnerable in her own right and the assessor is right that the underlying factors which led to drug use in the first place have not been addressed.

I look specifically at [Person E]. She loves the children. She has done her best. She has given up her relationship with [Person K]. She has given up smoking. She would agree to a non-molestation order and written agreements. She has the support of [Person C] and the paternal family and we could put Ms W’s recommendations into practice to underpin this option.

Against this, I balance the fact that she is not ready to have the children now. As with [Person C], I think it would be hard for [Person E] to call the police and enforce the non-molestation order. By way of example, she did not manage to do that with a knife incident in January. Putting Ms W’s recommendation in place takes time and the children cannot tolerate that delay. [Person E]’s health is something that is a risk factor. She gave evidence she could not complete the parenting course this year due to a flare-up in her psoriasis and that might suggest she would struggle to make use of further training. Her health also calls into question her ability to meet the needs of the children and the medical assessor would not change their view even after being asked to reconsider. She has not been open and honest at all times in relation, for example, to [Person K], and [Person C], who would support her, has her own vulnerabilities.

The option of foster care. The positives about this is that the Local Authority would have parental responsibility, there could be vetted and carefully chosen carers, it would keep the two children together, the bonds with the family would be retained and it would avoid the uncertainty of whether an adoptive placement could be found. The principle of care could be settled now.

Against this the children will have a corporate parent, a social worker involved in the everyday decisions of their childhood. There is the possibility of change and potentially numerous placements. No one can guarantee that the current placement could continue. There is uncertainty as to when and whether [Person C] would ever be in a position to discharge the care order and the children need permanency and stability without delay. The current carers, although they are open to caring for the children in the long term, are not a cultural or religious match and it is a honeymoon period for them and I have to look at this option in principle, rather than by reference to specific carers. The Guardian was adamant that this option would not provide permanence and that the girls could not be told it was the plan for them to stay there. To do so would be confusing and to give them mixed messages.

I could adjourn for further assessment of [Person F]. She can meet their basic care needs. She is made an application and come to court. The main impediment for her caring for the girls, as she sees it, is her [redacted] training that has now finished. She has overnight contacts with them with no incidents. There are no reports of the girls coming back dysregulated or unsettled, although it is unclear whether that is [Person H] or [Person F] leading that contact.

Against this, if [Person F] is not reassessed and [Person C] or [Person E] cannot care, it means there is no potential for the girls to be placed with a family member - that would be true if [Person F] was reassessed negatively too - and the girls would need to, at a later stage, be placed for adoption. It might be necessary to explain to the girls when they are older that [Person F] came forward at the last minute and wanted to care for them, but the Judge said no. If [Person F] was assessed, there would be further delay. There would need to be a period of assessment and testing and there are several hurdles that need to be overcome like housing and [Person F]’s commitment to the girls; in fact, very little has changed in her life bar finishing training and, given her lack of commitment in the past, there is a risk that if things got tough she may withdraw again. The children have been told [Person D] is in Africa. I do not know who told them that, but certainly there is a complexity in the paternal family for giving the girls a narrative about [Person D]when at times they protested his innocence and the girls have an unusual view of what is happening to him. I have already mentioned all the negatives in [Person F]’s assessment and, above all, the children need permanency and stability which [Person F] cannot provide now.

The last option, and I look at them all side by side, is adoption. That provides stability and permanency; the girls could be placed together; they would be placed with a family chosen to meet their needs and give them a stable and predictable home. The Local Authority would no longer be making decisions for them, adoptive parents would. Their life could be underpinned by therapeutic work to set it on a firm foundation and careful life story work could help meet the girls’ identity needs.

Against this, of course, it would be a great loss both to the girls and their birth family. The adoption decision has lifelong implications for the girls’ identity and potentially later life challenges. Adoption is not a magic wand; adoptions can and do break down. There is no risk-free option and these girls will not be easy to place.

I have to consider whether making a care and placement order is necessary and proportionate because I should only intervene in the life of this family to the extent that it is necessary and proportionate to the risk to the children. But I am, having carried out that evaluation, satisfied that a care order and a placement order are proportionate orders. Sadly, I cannot envisage that the birth family will be in a position to provide care which comes close to meeting all the children’s needs in the near future and I am satisfied that adoption offers the best way of meeting their needs for permanence and security and stability. I accept the Local Authority and the Guardian’s case that this is genuinely a case where “nothing else will do” and I am satisfied the position is so clear that the children’s welfare requires me to dispense with the consent of their parents.

The Guardian suggests that we should look for 12 months for a placement of the girls together and then consider separating them in different adoptive placements. The social worker’s evidence was:

“If we still have not got a placement for both of them then I suppose, when we get to that point, we will need to reassess. But at this point I cannot say let us look to separate. We need to look at when we get to that point. We cannot make the decision now.”

I accept the social worker’s evidence and I agree. The Local Authority need to be able to exercise their decision-making powers for the girls at the time in the light of all the circumstances that exist then, so I decline to express a view on the separation of the girls at some future point in time. I will, however, approve an amendment to the care plan that the Local Authority requested setting out that, if no placement is found within a year, they will consider all the circumstances and all the alternatives and look again at what is best for the girls.

Before making a placement order, I have to consider the arrangements for contact and I have invited the parties to comment on those. I can make an order that a named person should have contact with the children and I can make such an order of my own initiative. When making a s.26 order, the children’s welfare is of my paramount consideration. I have looked again at the case of R v. C [2024] EWCA Civ. 1302 that summarises the law and also highlights the recent guidance given by the President of the Family Division in various lectures and looks in detail at s.26. I approve the timetable for the reduction of contact to monthly for [Person C] and the Guardian and the social worker agree that this is the best routine before a placement is found and that [Person E] can join if [Person C] would like every other month. In my view, the children’s [Person G, Person Q and Person I] should not be invited to any more contact. The evidence suggests they would not be able to be calm for the girls, for example, at a wish you well contact.

The Guardian does not suggest stopping or reducing the paternal family’s contact post-hearing and prior to placement. She clearly wrestled with this decision and highlighted what a complicated decision it was. I think that the paternal family contact will need to be calibrated around their response to this judgment. [Person F] is likely to be very disappointed that I have not granted her application and she has been very suspicious of social workers in the past. As I have said, the girls have the impression that [Person D] is in Africa and that is probably more likely than not from the paternal family and these girls need a very clear and accurate message about the future and so there is a need to assess if the paternal family can do this. If they can, I agree that once a month overnight can continue and approve the pattern set out in the plan but this must be, in my view, subject to recalibration in the light of how the paternal family take the judgment.

On the longer term contact, the psychologist was not opposed to the girls seeing both [Person C], [Person E] and the paternal family but she said she could not predict the impact of contact on the girls’ ability to settle. She thought it might be overwhelming for the children to see all family members face to face every year. The social worker took the view that [Person C] should see the children face to face once a year with [Person E] too, if [Person C] wanted her to join.

The social work view is that it would be a lot for adopters to have two sets of face to face contact for the maternal and then the paternal family. The family finder thought it was not unreasonable to ask for two direct contacts a year and she did not think it would make much of a difference to the pools of adopters. However, she stressed it needs to be framed around the needs of the child and highlighted that, despite the legal position of a s.26 order, that meant contact will be revisited when an adoption application is made. It had a practical effect on the ground of putting prospective adopters off.

In my view, [Person E] and [Person C] must agree not to tell [Person G, Person Q and Person I] of when, where and how often contact takes place post-adoption. I think that [Person E] and [Person C]’s contact does need to be risk assessed in the light of the broader family’s reaction to the judgment and at a time when an application for an adoption is made. It would be deeply detrimental if the wider paternal family pitched up.

So I do record on the face of the order that there needs to be a risk assessment of all future contact in light of the family reaction to the judgment. In principle, I agree there should be a direct once a year face to face contact for [Person C], together with [Person E] if she wishes to invite her, and that there should be indirect contact given and received by [Person C] and that she should have photos and be able to have small gifts that she gives to the girls.

Ideally, it would be good if the paternal family could see the girls once a year, if that helps the girls. However, the Guardian had concerns about [Person L]’s ability to cope with this and [Person F] last week referred to having it on her conscience if the girls could not be with her. So I think it is very difficult for them. The direct contact both before and after placement needs to be carefully assessed in the light of their reaction to the judgment. As a minimum, there should be indirect contact once a year. But direct contact needs very careful consideration. I am clear that the priority in the future must be [Person C]’s contact with [Person E] joining her if she would like. The paternal family seeing the girls is a nice to have, but the priority is [Person C].

The Local Authority have been open and supportive of direct contact and I remind myself that I should not make an order for the girls unless it is better than making no order at all. The evidence from the family finder talked about the deterrent effect of an order regardless of its legal niceties. Given that the Local Authority are accepting of direct contact and supportive of it, I remind myself of the case of Re C (Contact) [2008] 1 FLR 1151: “Where the court is satisfied that the Local Authority is committed to the level of contact endorsed by the court, a contact order is unnecessary” and that is the position here.

So, in conclusion, I record that the threshold criteria in s.31 are met. I approve the Local Authority’s care plan, but would just invite the following amendments to be added to the plan are: life story work including [Person D ] specifically; the support needed by the current foster carers; if there is an enhanced payment, I agree with the Guardian it should go to them directly and not to the agency; there needs to be nursery for [Person B]; there needs to be support getting [Person A] to school which is difficult for the foster carers; and in my view, play therapy should be sourced for both girls as soon as possible to help rebuild their relationship.

In relation to the care plan going forward, I have heard evidence that an adoptive family would need emotional and practical support. It is really important, in my view, that this is real and not theoretical and that there should be a commitment to incorporating both therapeutic work and on the ground social work guidance which prospective adopters will need. I am very clear that the recommendation that the social worker got from CAMHS was that there will need to be some therapy with the ultimate carers and I think that that needs to be spelt out in the care plan so that, if and when they come forward asking for it, it is clear that that was recommended within these proceedings.

I think in an ideal world the Local Authority would find a therapist now who is prepared to work with [Person A] wherever she is placed in the UK. I suspect it may not be easy to find such a person, but nevertheless that is my view and I would wish for that to be taken into account. At the very least, there needs to be a formal handover from [Person A]’s current therapist at school to any new one tasked with helping her.

I record that the care plan should be amended to expressly say that the wider maternal family are not invited to any further contact; that is just for [Person E] and [Person C]. The direct contact with [Person C] once a year is the template that must be in the care plan and all future contact needs to be calibrated when the reaction to both the maternal and the paternal family to this judgment is known. The direct face to face for the paternal family is a nice to have but that too will need to be carefully risk assessed. In the contact agreement going forward, I can ask that that is amended to record [Person C]’s agreement not to tell [Person G, Person Q and Person I] where or how contact will take place in future. The adopters should be asked to provide a yearly update to [Person C] so she knows how she can best write to the girls and that [Person E] can come to [Person C]’s contact if [Person C] would like.

The next thing I do is make a care order. I dispense with the consent of the parents.

I make a placement order. I direct a transcript of this judgment be prepared at the Local Authority’s expense. It will be anonymised by transcribers, forwarded to the legal representatives to identify any jigsaw identification and published. I trust that the solicitor for the child will send it to all professionals who have given evidence for their learning and development.

I give leave for relevant documentation to be disclosed to prospective adopters. In particular, and I am grateful for the family finder in indicating, the judgment, the psychologist’s report, the final social work statement should be part of that bundle going forward. In my view, the children’s permanence report needs to expressly cover the children’s therapeutic needs and the funding of them, as the social worker has set out in her statement. It is my hope that these girls should have all the support that they need.

I make the usual orders in relation to costs.

I do very much hope that [Person C] can bring herself to participate in life story work and perhaps meet prospective adopters and I do hope that both [Person E] and [Person C] will continue the journey that they have started to be the best mum and the best grandmother that they can be and, regardless of the outcome of this case, I hope that they will do that domestic abuse work and seek therapeutic support from themselves after this judgment and that the Local Authority will signpost them for this. For their own sake, I hope they get the support that they need and this can only benefit the girls whatever role they play in the girls’ lives going forward.

If [Person A] and [Person B] in later life read this judgment, they need to appreciate that their mother and their grandmother love them and did everything within their power to wish to bring them up.

In closing the case, I am grateful to the social worker for the time and thought that she has devoted to these girls and her effective work on it. I am very glad that she will remain the social worker and provided much needed continuity for the girls going forward. I am very grateful to the Guardian for her careful reports and really determined rigorous scrutiny of the Local Authority’s plans at every stage of the process. There is a practice I have noticed of Guardians requesting that they do not come to court and they are excused from coming to all those intermediate hearings, and goodness knows there have been a lot in this case. But this Guardian to the best of my memory is nearly always, if not always, there outside of the court speaking to people, rolling up her sleeves and trying to get the best outcome for the girls in this case and I commend her for the way that she has done so.

I wish to thank counsel for the calm, clear and courteous way that they have conducted what has been a very distressing hearing at times and they have really assisted me in the way that they have presented the case to the court and I would particularly want to thank Ms Marks. [Person C] has been to 19 hearings and I think Ms Marks has been to every single one that I have sat in as a Judge and that commitment of hers to a really very vulnerable client is something that I am very grateful for and each of the parties should be very clear that they have had excellent representation.

Finally, I hope that formal thanks can be conveyed to all the foster carers who have played their role in caring for the children during periods of great uncertainty and instability.