X & Y (Children) (Dispute as to Maternity), Re

The applicant, supported by the children’s guardian, asks me to make final care orders which would place the children together with a plan of long-term foster care. The first respondent opposes this plan and disputes there is any legal basis for making the order sought. The children’s father has not been traced and as such has played no role in these proceedings. The proceedings at the date of handing down will be in week 56.

Unusually the applicant also asks me to make a declaration that the first respondent is not the children’s biological mother. I am asked to reach this conclusion by drawing inferences from the evidence which is available. The guardian leans against such a finding. The first respondent opposes any such finding and maintains she is the children’s biological mother. The children are confirmed as biological full siblings.

Notwithstanding the above I will within this judgment refer to the first respondent as “the mother”, the applicant as “the LA” and the children’s guardian as “the CG”. To avoid any confusion and where appropriate I will refer to the undoubted mother of the children as the biological mother “BM”. I will refer to the children using their first names. No discourtesy is intended by this usage.

The hearing proceeded over 2½ days. I keep in mind the live evidence I heard from the witnesses who attended alongside the documents contained within the hearing bundle (Footnote: ¹) and the arguments put before me by respective counsel for each party (Footnote: ²).

The LA has not satisfied me that I should make the declaration sought as to non-maternity. I proceed on the basis the mother is the children’s biological mother. I do however remain concerned this conclusion is surrounded by lingering doubt and I am troubled I have not been able to reach a conclusion with absolute confidence in this regard. I would urge the mother to engage in DNA testing to put the issue to rest for the sake of the children’s emotional wellbeing.

I am satisfied the legal threshold is crossed.

I am satisfied the children’s welfare is only consistent with the making of a care order with a plan of long-term foster care.

I approve the contact planning proposed by the LA.

It is not possible to provide a background to this case with a level of confidence I would like to have. There is much in this case which remains unclear. This is because the mother has either been unable or unwilling to shed full light on the background circumstances. This underlies the argument as to maternity with multiple conflicting and inconsistent accounts having been provided. Further, the mother has at times provided accounts which appear wholly inconsistent with known facts. At other times she has been unable to provide answers to basic questions, e.g. how old are you? This leaves me with some real challenges around the essentials of the account given by the mother. She has spoken of being a victim of domestic abuse (although her account around this subject has not been entirely consistent) but there is little by way of objective and independent evidence to support the account. The professionals have proceeded on the basis the allegation of such victimhood is true. The truth of the same may offer some explanation in part to the mother’s idiosyncratic approach, but it does not materially impact on the decisions I make. For my assessment, I have accepted the essential allegation of being a victim of domestic abuse. I have not been required to make specific findings.

As will be seen below there is some documentary evidence surrounding the actions of the BM. It is agreed by all that the documents pertaining to the period 2017 to around April 2018 are relating to the BM. Thereafter there is an evidential gap before recommencing in 2023 to the current date. It is agreed by all that these later documents relate to the mother. The evidential dispute is as to what happened in the period in between and whether the mother for reasons unknown replaced the BM in the lives of the children?

In August 2017 the BM presented at hospital in London, 5-6 months pregnant. She gave an account suggesting domestic abuse and coercive and controlling behaviour from her husband. Her account included moving between this jurisdiction and the Republic of Ireland (“ROI”). She claimed to have returned to London recently after a dispute with her husband. The account was sufficient to raise a safeguarding concern shared with the relevant local authority (London Borough of Harrow). Shortly after, the BM became a missing person as the accommodation details provided by her appeared to be false. A safeguarding meeting was held in her absence and multiple search efforts made. The information obtained suggested she might have returned to the ROI. This belief was confirmed in the following month when there was contact between the local authority and the social services (TUSLA) in the ROI. The BM had presented at a maternity hospital in Dublin and there were plans for the birth to be induced as she was overdue in her pregnancy. One week later the BM gave birth to X. The case was closed to the local authority and taken over by TUSLA.

I have records from TUSLA for the period from around September 2017 until February 2018. It is clear concerns as to abuse remained live. The BM confirmed an account of domestic abuse but gave a conflicting account of the length of her marriage to her husband. She claimed they were living with her two brothers at an identified address. A plan for safeguarding was impacted when the BM was discharged with X prior to the meeting taking place. There was then a short period during which TUSLA and Gardaí Siochana (ROI police) struggled to locate the BM. When contact was made the BM stated she was safe living with her brother. It is noteworthy (see notes of meeting with health visitor present) that BM gave a confused account of her address to the point which it had to be drawn to her attention that she was not at the address she was in fact stating herself to be in. She claimed her husband had come to London and brought her back. At a later meeting both parents were spoken to together. The notes indicate continuing difficulty in engagement including several missed meetings before a home visit in early January 2018. The home conditions were poor. There was no electricity and a strong smell of food starting to go off in the fridge. The family were in rent arrears as the rent was being continually increased by the landlord. There were reports of intimidation from the landlord and others. The husband was reported as being out of the country and the BM was in financial difficulty. As a date for eviction neared plans were made for the BM to return to London and her family.

The documents show the BM returned to this jurisdiction on about 5 February 2018. There were initial concerns as to her being homeless with X and she was directed towards support services. On leaving ROI she had provided an account that she was planning to move into the home of a friend. In any event the records then recommence in February 2018 with the BM being supported via the London Borough of Brent. I have limited health visitor notes in the period February – April 2018. Whilst I do not have the full medical records, I note a report of a meeting with a GP in May 2018 which appears to be the last documented contact with the BM.

As noted above there is little by way of evidence to understand what was taking place during this period. It is known the BM returned to ROI where Y was born in 2019. There must be a real likelihood that the children remained outside the jurisdiction for most of this period given their frequent contact with agencies both in the period before and after this time when within the jurisdiction, but I accept that is speculation. There is perhaps some evidence as to the circumstances leading to appearance of the children in the UK in 2023 although even that is very confused. It is clear an event of significant domestic abuse was reported in which the father was said to have held a knife to the BM/mother and threatened to kill her. The documents are confused as to where this happened with indications that both Garda in ROI and PSNI in Northern Ireland were acting on this event. The Northern Irish angle appears more likely as there are details of the father being remanded or bailed and a prosecution not proceeding due to a lack of support from the BM/mother.

The history then commences with the mother with both children in London. Initial contact is with the London Borough of Brent in around September 2023. Her account is that she had fled domestic abuse from her husband in around July 2023. At that point in time X was nearing 6 years of age but had not entered schooling. The report was that the mother was avoidant of engagement with social work support and there were housing issues (the mother had been deemed intentionally homeless after refusing a housing offer). A plan was agreed around safeguarding and housing and accessing education. In January 2024 a housing application was withdrawn due to lack of contact. The mother had not attended a child in need meeting, and a lack of proactivity and engagement was noted. I note a case note from January 2024 in which the worker is seeking to confirm the mother’s identity. During this search the worker identified the records from August 2017 referred to above.

A strategy meeting was held that month due to concern the children were suffering significant harm via neglect and related to historic emotional and physical abuse. There were once again contact issues with the mother. The worker was concerned as to the mother being culturally and socially isolated. The children remained outside education. Their accommodation was highly transient moving every 2-3 nights. At that time there was disagreement between Brent Children Services and the Police as to a need for a s47 investigation or a Child Protection Conference. The social worker felt the threshold was not met and that the mother was engaging and doing her best in the circumstances to meet the needs of the children. A decision was made to continue the child in need plan. It appears contact with the mother broke down shortly thereafter and concerns led to a police welfare check request. It appears the mother and children were in the London Borough of Hillingdon at that time. Indeed, subsequent notes suggest the father may have been renting property in the Borough throughout the timeline considered in this section.

The next contact was in March 2024 and is a referral from the London Ambulance Service (LAS) who attended the mother following reports of the children having breathing issues. They were concerned as to the account they were given by the mother and the child. In April 2024, Y was admitted to hospital with a burn. The hospital expressed concern as to discharging him into his mother’s care given a lack of detail as to the caring arrangements. A further strategy meeting was held which noted multiple addresses, a lack of medical registration, continued lack of educational registration and housing concerns. There was a developing concern that the mother was seeking to avoid professional engagement for reasons unknown. There was a follow up home visit at the end of April 2024 with limited access to the home being granted. A section 47 investigation commenced. This concluded the children were living in the jurisdiction of the LA (having moved into the maternal grandmother’s home) and the case was transferred.

The narrative then continues with documentation following transfer to the LA. Initial concerns included the presence of the mother’s brother, [Z], in the home following his leaving supported accommodation. His care team were struggling to contact him and had concerns as to the circumstances given previous diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia and resistance to treatment. The concerns included whether he was left to care for the children. Later the concerns developed and involved a question as to whether the mother was inappropriately controlling the brother.

Engagement with the mother continued to be a significant concern. However, contact was then made and an assessment agreed. The report at that time was that the mother and children were living in a room in the maternal grandmother’s home which was rented out and with her two brother’s and one uncle living in other rooms of the property. The mother reported her husband knew where they were living and there were men knocking on the door of the house (presumed from the husband) and on other occasions men had tried to break into a previous property. Following this visit in June 2024 further attempted visits were not successful, the mother was reported as not completing any of the agreed tasks and being evasive and delaying support and intervention. The concerns were as to the children continuing to be out of education, the children having language delays without any support, poor engagement with health, concerns around domestic abuse, financial challenges, living with family with concerns around associated mental health needs. It was noted all these concerns could be addressed if there were an appropriate level of engagement but to date this had not happened. The decision was taken to progress the matter to a Child Protection Conference. Pursuant to this a home visit was achieved in July 2024 but engagement was felt to be continuing at a poor level. The conclusion was reached that whilst a level of anxiety on her part was understandable there remained clear risks around the children which required her to engage with professionals. A child protection conference followed on 2 August 2024 and reached the conclusion that the threshold for significant harm was met under the category of neglect. A plan for support was set out, and the case was to be reviewed on 24 October 2024.

During this period contact remained challenging, and concerns arose as to whether the mother might be back in contact with the father. During a conversation with the current allocated social worker on 2 September 2024 X spoke of being at his father’s home that morning but said he wasn’t meant to talk about that and that he didn’t trust the social worker. Attempts at progressing contact with education made no progress and items purchased for the accommodation had not been put into use. A school had been allocated but the mother had failed to complete the necessary registration forms. A health visitor expressed concerns as to circumstances on her attendance and in general the home conditions were problematic. It was agreed the children should remain on a child protection plan.

Then on 24 November 2024 the children were placed into police protection following attendance at their home. It appears the police attended following concerns relating to the location of the maternal grandmother. During their visit they were concerned as to the mother’s evasiveness, the state of the accommodation and the children. There was a troubling standoff in which the police were seeking to establish where the children were with the mother saying they were safe and implicitly suggesting they were elsewhere. This ended when a police officer discovered the children in the property. The situation was then not helped by the children in part denying the fact the mother was their mother. I have body worn footage of this attendance and a transcript.

A full understanding of the proceedings can be found in section B of the bundle. I note the following highlights:

The children’s welfare is paramount. I will have regard to section 1(3) Children Act 1989 in considering their welfare needs.

The order sought by the LA requires me to find the legal threshold in section 31 of the Children Act 1989 to have been crossed at the start of the proceedings. The test is whether the children were suffering significant harm at that point in time as a result of the care they were being given and that such care was not what the court would reasonably expect from a care giver or that the children were likely to suffer significant harm as a result of the care likely to be given to them if an order were not made.

If there is a dispute as to factual matters, then it is the responsibility of the party making the allegation (here the LA) to prove the allegation. It will do so on the balance of probabilities by showing the event was more likely than not to have occurred as alleged. If this is shown the allegation will be treated as a fact. If not, it will be disregarded. It is not for the other party to disprove the allegation or to provide an explanation to the Court. All evidence will be relevant, and the Court can have regard to inherent probabilities. The evidence of parents will always be a matter of central consideration.

Case law sets out the care the Court should take in assessing allegations and evidence in general where a party has been shown to have lied in some regards. It is not appropriate to use the established lies as a foundation for disbelieving all the evidence of that party. The Court must examine the lie and reason through its probative value to issues in dispute. At all times the Court must keep in mind that people may lie for various reasons, many of which are not related to seeking to avoid the truth of allegations placed before the Court.

The crossing of the legal threshold is not sufficient to authorise the making of the final orders sought by the LA. It is a condition precedent to such an order but not a justification alone. Once established the Court then examines all the evidence, applies the paramountcy principle and considers whether there is a lesser form of intervention which would adequately safeguard the children. In doing so the Court is recognising that Article 8 rights are engaged and that each family member, and the children have a right to respect for their private family life. This means any intervention, and a care order is a significant intervention, must be proportionate, necessary and reasonable.

The Court must be mindful that there are many different styles of parenting of children throughout this jurisdiction. There is no model of parenting let alone an approved model of care. Parents have significant freedom to raise their children in the manner they see fit so long as this does not cause the children significant harm. It is not for the Court to impose on any family a style of parenting and the Court must accept parenting, which is inadequate, idiosyncratic and at points harmful. The test for me is as to whether the mother can provide ‘good enough parenting’.

Where a child is placed into the care of a local authority there is a duty to promote reasonable contact with the child’s parent(s). A local authority requires permission to refuse contact.

The question of parentage is addressed in section 55A Family Law Act 1986. Under those provisions the Court can refuse to hear the application, and presumably refuse to determine the same, if it considers the determination of the application would not be in the interests of the child. The case law largely relates to the consideration of paternity, and it is commonplace for inferences to be drawn where a test is refused. In the normal course of events a successfully obtained test is conclusive as to the question of paternity. For the avoidance of doubt where the issue is to be determined the balance of probabilities is the appropriate test.

I find it troubling that this matter remains unclear when absolute clarity could have been obtained by a simple DNA test. I am not satisfied by the mother’s grounds for refusing the same. In evidence she references religious advice she had received as to the taking of the test. I was not persuaded by this account for three reasons; (1) I do not accept it is a tenet of the mother’s religion that she cannot undertake DNA testing. I am not sure she claimed this to be the case. My sense was that she was simply accepting advice, if this is true, from an individual within her religious community; (2) In any event the statement evidence is quite clear that the mother formulated a view oppositional to testing prior to the time at which she claims to have received contrary religious advice; (3) There is no doubt the mother understands the significance of this issue and the complication that her refusal is posing for the Court. I took her through this with care and left her the opportunity to modify her position – she chose not to.

I am troubled as to the impact this is having on the children. They are aware of this issue, X in particular, and have been tested to establish their inter-sibling relationship. I am in no doubt uncertainty over this issue is impacting on their willingness to engage with their mother. X has recently asked of the mother if she is his mother? That the mother has in the face of this question refused to provide a clear answer through testing is in my assessment to prioritise her own position taking over the needs of the children in a most thoughtless manner.

This is not a case in which the Court can simply determine not to resolve the issue. The issue has escaped into the lives of the child and a failure to resolve the issue will itself cause the children ongoing doubt and harm. They have no father in their lives. To question whether their mother is truly their mother is a worry beyond imagination. Further, the LA needs the Court to provide such answer as can be deduced from the evidence.

I accept the LA have properly placed this matter before the Court. They have not done so lightly and did not raise the issue until the developing evidence reached a point where it could not be ignored. The conduct of the mother since has increased their concerns. In my assessment the LA are not looking for this answer and would welcome confirmation that the mother is the children’s birth mother. But they are now left in the unenvious position of managing this situation in a position of uncertainty with children who are crying out for clarity.

I accept the test to be applied is the balance of probabilities. But this does not mean the Court should not be looking for credible evidence on which to build a conclusion. It is troubling that I am left to reach conclusions based largely on inferences. I am mindful of the potential for me to reach a conclusion as sought by the LA; for the children to be informed and for the mother to then engage in testing and provide confirmation to the contrary. I cannot begin to imagine the emotional harm such a changing landscape would cause to the children. Further to effectively rob the children of a mother on inferences alone is a matter to cause real reflection.

I do accept I can draw an inference from the mother’s refusal to undertake testing. This is a strong piece of evidence given my points above. In cases of paternity in which financial support is in issue this may be a sufficient basis alone to reach a conclusion. I will have to consider if there are factors which balance against the question of drawing an inference.

In this case the LA draw particular attention to the following aspects of the case:

There is no doubt I found her a most unsatisfactory witness. The expert evidence identifies no cognitive issue or indeed anything that might explain her idiosyncratic approach to evidence recall. She gave evidence in a fluid and comprehensible manner without need of an interpreter. She had a full grasp of English and spoke clearly. The expert made the valid point that whereas there are conditions that may impact on recall the form of difficulty in recall which the mother suggests does not fit with any such condition. Not being able to say where your children were born and various other identifying matters whilst being able to give other evidence is simply inexplicable. I agree the mother has been evasive to a level beyond that normally expected. What is less clear is the motivation for this behaviour. Is there some undiagnosed mental health condition which is impacting on her ability to share information? Is she simply being difficult and unwilling to bend to provide information as requested? Is she untrusting of professionals to such a level that she will not provide a consistent account which can be recorded and relied upon? Is she lying as to maternity and struggling now to avoid this conclusion being reached? The point I make is that her approach is not consistent with only one answer to the question.

Given the concerns I hold in this regard and given the importance of the decision I have read and re-read all the documents found within the relevant sections of the bundle. This issue deserves the closest scrutiny possible, and I have attempted to do this for the sake of the children.

I make the following points:

In summary there are some very troubling question marks over the status of the mother. She has significantly contributed to the doubts that arise and indeed has done so in such a manner as to cause positive harm to the children. Yet I am persuaded she bears both the name and date of birth of the BM and that she has not perpetuated identity theft in this regard given the ability to trace this back to her childhood via PNC records. Further, she has, despite her problematic narrative, given details which chime with the accepted account of the BM. I cannot see that this was done for strategic purposes, indeed none of these points were advanced by her during the hearing with the aim of persuading me. They have simply been found in the evidence. Finally, there is no obvious alternative history that might have been expected had the mother at some point between 2018 and 2023 removed the children from a BM.

Having regard to the above I am not satisfied the LA has made out its case as to non-maternity. I therefore do not make the declaration sought. Yet I am left with real, not fanciful doubts, and I am conscious that whilst this assessment of the evidence may give the LA comfort it is likely to be lost on the children who will want a simple answer. I also appreciate this balanced decision is susceptible to future developments in evidence. The answer remains the obvious solution of testing to provide absolute confidence to the children. I continue to urge the mother to engage.

Whilst not making the finding sought as to non-maternity, I am in no doubt that the mother’s approach to this issue both at the inception of the proceedings and throughout has been significantly harmful to the children. It continues to be. It acts to undermine their very sense of themselves and leaves them emotionally and psychologically significantly harmed. That this could be so easily resolved and yet the mother refuses to do so indicates a troubling prioritisation of her own needs over those of the children and an absence of understanding and insight into the children’s needs. I find paragraphs 1-5 of schedule 2 to the threshold established on balance of probabilities.

I also agree the evidence plainly demonstrates significant harm caused to the children emotionally out of their transient lives and absence of engagement with education and supporting services. I do not accept this can be explained away by reference to domestic abuse and the need to lead a transient life to avoid being traced. The strong sense of the evidence and my finding is that each time professionals latched onto the family the mother acted to ensure the support could not be successfully actioned. This attitude is mirrored in her unwillingness to be open within these proceedings. I accept that domestic abuse can shape a person’s willingness to be open and engaging and their ability to share all information. But my finding is that the mother’s actions are far outside of this understandable territory. This is one of those troubling cases in which children have effectively fallen through the gaps as they move from local authority to local authority and in this case from country to country. Just as each local authority engages with the family and starts to act to correct the harm being caused the children move on and the work stops. The result is that they have remained outside of education and efforts to regularise their position have been obstructed by the mother. Their housing circumstances have been repeatedly modified such that they have had no chance to set down any roots. Their housing conditions in situ have been unacceptable. This situation is longstanding and has been almost ever present, so far as can be seen, throughout their lives. Were it not for the actions of the police and the crystallisation of the child arrangements within these proceedings I have little doubt there would have been further transiency. I find the children have suffered neglect leading to significant harm and find paragraphs 6-12 of schedule 2 to the threshold proven. I prefer the objective reported evidence over the current reports of the mother where the two conflict. On multiple occasions the mother was taken to recorded self-reporting on her part only to deny the account was true. This suggestion related to nearly all third-party reports of what she said. I give two examples. First, is the transcript of the police attendance. The mother continues to provide an account of not knowing where the children are when she was being questioned at the front door (they were in fact in one of the rooms inside the property), claiming she did not need to say because the police had already removed them earlier in the day and knew where they were. This is self-evidently incorrect as seen in the frustration of the police officer on the discovery of the children (which is recorded in the clearest detail on the body work footage (“BWF”)). Secondly, the mother denies the children were not toilet trained despite being recorded as explaining their non-attendance at school in part due to the fact they were not toilet trained. The mother is simply so incredible and inconsistent in her account that I have found I can place little if any weight on her account unless supported by extraneous corroborative evidence.

I am not satisfied on balance as to the allegations of physical abuse of the children by the mother although I accept this has been reported. However, I am satisfied the children have suffered significant harm in experiencing domestic abuse within the family. I accept the mother is the likely victim of abuse, but the evidence is clearly of her inability to offer any protection to the children from the same. I accept the account of the social worker of X reporting recent contact with his father, and I note there is a separate report from the children as to the mother looking for the father at a shopping centre, and I am dubious as to the counter account given by the mother. There is strong evidence of the impact on the children of experiencing this abuse in their behaviours including dysregulated language to professionals – see their language towards the police on BWF. I note and accept the evidence of significant positive change in behaviour on the part of the children following removal. I am also satisfied the mother has acted inappropriately post-removal and encouraged the children to make reports about the foster carer. This again prioritised her needs over those of the children and has likely further fed into their unwillingness to attend contact. Changing reports from X together with evidence of whispering to the children in contact support this conclusion. I find paragraphs 14-16 of the second schedule to the threshold proven,

This completes my analysis of the threshold. It is crossed for these purposes.

I was impressed by the professional witnesses in this case. The social worker gave balanced and thoughtful evidence. He has been the allocated worker for most if not all the proceedings and has been doing his best in what are challenging circumstances. I reached a similar conclusion regarding the parenting assessor and the psychologist. In truth there was no material challenge to their professionalism, and I found both helpful witnesses as to welfare needs of the children and the ability of the mother to meet these needs. The CG was also a helpful and balanced witness. The reality of this case is that the mother has made it much harder for the professionals to help her by reason of her fluctuating and inconsistent accounts. I can only hope that she will reflect and change her approach. I am confident the social work team are wanting to do the best for this family and given the chance would be hoping to achieve a reconciliation of the relationship between the children and mother. I have set out my views on the mother in the earlier section.

I approach the wishes and feelings of the children with real caution. I appreciate they have views which have fluctuated during these proceedings. At points they have clearly wanted to have contact with their mother. There is evidence of a real bond and warmth in the relationship. Yet at other times, and currently, the children (but X in particular) are oppositional to contact. I note, and accept, that efforts have been made to force the issue unsuccessfully and that more careful steps have also been taken. These children are still young and lack the maturity to make reasoned decisions as to what is best for them. I consider it is in their interests to see their mother, but I can appreciate how the history set out above will now be operating on their feelings. It is only right to note and accept the challenge the LA have faced in promoting contact in a setting in which the children question their maternity and the mother is unwilling to put their doubts to rest. Once again, I note the question from X: “Are you my mother”. The recorded response to this was: “To the best of my knowledge, but if I am not, I would like to meet her”.

These wishes cannot be overlooked when I am considering the placement of the children but neither can they determine the issue. Nonetheless it is difficult to see how rehabilitation now can be successfully managed in a child focused way. This might be different were the concern irrational and likely to be addressed on return. I am not at all confident this is the case and so there is a real prospect of significant harm being occasioned if some regard is not given to the children’s expressed views.

I have dealt with risk issues within the threshold, and I will further address them within the need’s consideration below. I draw attention to the significant difficulty I face in analysing the extent to which the father may be part of the children’s lives or what their lived experience is (so far as risk is relevant on an ongoing basis) given the poor account provided by the mother. This is a case in which the passage of the proceedings has not materially ameliorated the concerns under this heading, if anything the concerns have increased.

I have regard to the children’s personal characteristics. Notwithstanding the issues as to the provided history there is sufficient to form an understanding of the key components. I have regard to their cultural and religious features. I importantly have regard to the very likely isolated and inward-looking quality of their lived experience. All the evidence suggests this has been a highly isolated family for a sustained period. This enhances the importance of the sibling relationship and efforts to achieve reconciliation in the family relationship. But it will also be important to allow the children space to develop relationships and greater autonomy outside of these relationships. The children have suffered an absence of peer group engagement through schooling as would have been expected and their dysregulated behaviour is likely in part a symptom of these complications. I note the positive evidence of change during placement, and this gives some confidence that some remedial steps have been actioned. It is quite unclear as to the quality of the children’s relationships with their wider family given the differing accounts given over the years of local authority involvement. This feature will have to be considered with care in any work undertaken by the LA.

I have regard to what impact a change in circumstances will have on the children. At the heart of this judgment is a consideration as to whether the children can return to the care of their mother. Once again, I am compelled to cite the difficulty in assessing the likely impact given the real uncertainty as to what their lived experience was prior to removal. I recognise the efforts the mother has gone to with respect to improving herself via courses, but I judge it will be important for this change to be evidenced in her actions before the LA can properly rely upon it. It is of course entirely possible to engage with courses without making real change. I am not suggesting this is the approach of the mother, but I consider it is appropriate to evaluate change through action in this case. This will amount to assessing how she engages with the children. But I again note her position with respect to DNA testing, given its impact on the children, does not signal a level of expected insight on her part gained from courses undertaken to date.

Throughout this judgment I have commented upon the decision making of the mother. This feeds into my evaluation of her capacity to meet the needs of the children. Care proceedings start with a threshold however care proceedings are a dynamic not static process. The process is intended to gather evidence which may show adjustment and positive change. Sadly, I end these proceedings not very far forward in this regard with continuing issues as to insight, attunement and engagement. There is evidence which suggest positives in the care of the children. I have regard to the strong bond and warmth in contact. However, appropriate evaluation of this in context is difficult and there are a range of counter balancing factors which cannot be disregarded.

I end with the children’s needs. In most cases the Court places emotional needs at the forefront of its consideration judging that the meeting of such needs will likely promote other needs. In this case emotional, educational and physical needs remain live considerations. The children have been kept out of education. I am satisfied appropriate efforts have been made across authorities to ensure access to education. However, the mother has been resistant to this process and had failed to complete necessary forms. The continuance of a highly transient lifestyle has further complicated this. As a result, the children have fallen behind their peers and there are real language issues. Without urgent action the children’s lives risk being blighted. Their physical care is poorly understood but what is known is concerning. They have lived a transient life, and their accommodation has been problematic. There is evidence of efforts to rectify this situation which have not been accepted by the mother. Importantly, their emotional needs have not been adequately met as set out in the threshold. There emotional needs demand an answer to the DNA question. They demand a clear historical narrative to understand who they are. They demand these issues to be treated with the importance they deserve by their mother. Whilst this is delayed they are losing trust in her. The longer this is delayed the harder it will be to rebuild.

It has now been more than 6 months since contact stopped. I have commented within this judgment as to obvious factors which have impacted in this regard. As is clear the mother has made a significant contribution to these difficulties. In evidence the mother sought to pass responsibility to the foster carer insinuating that she has acted in such a manner to cause the children to oppose contact. I heard evidence from the social worker on this point and whilst he acknowledged that the complex issue of maternity and testing may not have been considered with the foster carer as it should have been he nonetheless pointed to points which caused him to believe the allegations against the social worker were not the cause of the children’s opposition.

I accept there is a likelihood that the children have heard directly or indirectly from the foster carer comments that may have contributed to their concerns. However, I accept the circumstances confronting the foster carer have been challenging. The mother has been seen whispering to the children and subsequently allegations were made by X against the foster carer before being withdrawn. I received evidence of the foster carer taking direct steps to take the children to contact despite their objections. I accept this evidence which conflicts with the case put by the mother. I also note the good and positive care being offered by the foster carer which has allowed the children to make real progress in her care. Superimposed upon this has been the fact the children have been tested, that they are conscious of this and have expressed their own concerns as to the status of their mother. This has been the context in which the foster carer has found herself. I do not accept she is the primary cause of the children’s opposition. The primary cause is identified in this judgment.

In previous case management orders, I have provided for work to be done with the children to aid the reconciliation of their relationship with their mother. I have considered the steps taken and accept it has amounted to a real effort to address the issue. In this case the LA are not seeking an order to refuse contact. They are doing their best to address the issue and have turned to the mother to make her contribution. I have commented upon questions raised by X which were to be addressed in a child focused way by the mother working with the social worker. I have identified an obviously unhelpful response on her part and have repeated the simplicity with which this issue might be resolved. I am in no doubt were the mother to do that which is expected of her the LA task would be made easier and the likelihood of success much greater.

The LA have set out their plan of further work which is supported by the CG. The mother seeks the immediate return of the children although she would accept such support as is offered to enable this.

This is an unusual and troubling case. However, the conclusions I have reached are clear. I am satisfied the threshold in this case is crossed notwithstanding my dismissal of the application re non-maternity.

I am further satisfied the welfare of the children demands the making of a care order with a plan for long term foster care. At this point in time the mother is not placed to provide the children with good enough care. On the evidence I am not satisfied there has been a meaningful reduction in the risks associated with her care when compared to the commencement of the proceedings. Her ability to work openly and co-operatively with professionals remains largely untested. The fact she has engaged with assessments for the purpose of achieving the return of the children is not the same as evidence that she will work with professionals in respect of future care. All the evidence in this regard, and this is longstanding, is to the opposite. At this point in time, I consider a return to the mother would mean a return to a situation of risk of significant harm much as it was before. I remain concerned as to whether the children would access education, have their daily emotional needs met and be kept safe in a stable and consistent setting.

This conclusion must then factor in the opposition of the children to contact at this time. Their opposition can be seen to be grounded in a justifiable worry. I will not repeat the central point again, but this is not a case in which the concern is likely to simply fall away on return of the children. It seems to me likely any return would need to be in conjunction with the issue being fully resolved. At this point in time, I judge any application to discharge this order will necessitate the undertaking of the testing as a condition of discharge.

I am concerned contact remains suspended. The mother loves the children and there is an undoubted bond. However, this arose within a complex dynamic of social isolation and needs to now be recalibrated in a healthier context. The children do not trust their mother currently and it is incumbent on the mother to be part of the trust building exercise.

In this case I cannot identify a lesser form of intervention that would both safeguard the children’s needs whilst avoiding family separation. The care order is a proportionate and necessary response to the circumstances faced.

I will now send this judgment to counsel. It can be shared with their clients (professional and lay). I would welcome any corrections and requests for clarification by 4pm on 19 December 2025. The judgment will be handed down electronically at 9.30am on 22 December 2025 without attendance. A draft order for approval should be uploaded by 4pm on 23 December 2025. I will entertain any application for permission to appeal on the papers so long as the same are sent to me by 9am on 22 December 2025. As this judgment will be published, please could any redactions (other than as to the family names) required to preserve confidentiality be brought to my attention. I thank counsel for the hard work on this case. It has been handled professionally and sensitively. I wish the children the very best and hope very much that with reflection the necessary steps can now be taken to rebuild their relationship with their mother.