EL (Care and placement order), Re

In this matter, I am concerned with E who was born on 20 April 2025. She is now eight months old. I see in the papers that she is usually referred to as EL. Therefore, for the purposes of this judgment, I will refer to her as EL. Her mum is M, who is represented today by Mrs Stanistreet-Keen. Unfortunately, M has not attended. I am told she is feeling unwell. Having read the papers and having seen some of the difficulties this mother has had, it does not surprise me that she is not here. I think she was probably fully aware of the likely outcome of these proceedings and simply found it too difficult to come to court today.

EL’s father has never been identified. EL does have a Guardian who is present and who has prepared a report and position statement for today’s hearing.

This is the Local Authority’s application for a care and placement order. In theory, that is opposed by the mother, who has filed a final statement dated 17 September, indicating how she feels that things have improved for her and how she does not agree with the making of a placement order. EL’s Guardian fully supports the applications, and I have just sought clarity now in terms of the Local Authority’s proposals and plans for contact, which I will come back to.

This mother has an unfortunate background. She herself was an adopted child. Her adoptive placement appears to have been a positive placement. However, later in life, this mother developed problems with her mental health and with alcohol use. That has resulted in her experiencing periods of homelessness and instability in her home situation, and a number of relationships that have been abusive and violent.

EL is the mother’s fourth child. She sadly does not have care of any of the three older children. One was in a family placement with her grandmother, but that placement broke down. That child is now in Local Authority foster care. The middle two children are both adopted, as I understand it. Orders for placement for adoption in relation t those children were made in 2021 and 2022.

The mother’s problems have continued throughout her adult life, as far as I can see, and the pre-birth assessment that was carried out in these proceedings identified those problems as ongoing. The mother initially showed some real signs that she was committed to achieving change in her life and was very committed to her daughter. However, sadly, those changes were not sustained. She failed to engage in the further assessment that was offered to her during the course of these proceedings. She failed to engage in hair strand testing and, probably, most significantly, she has failed to engage with the contact that has been offered to her, with EL having attended only four sessions in total.

I do not see that lack of commitment to contact as being an indicator that she does not care about EL. I am sure from everything I have read that she loves EL very much indeed. She has just found the process very difficult. She has engaged with the social worker on occasions, but did not make herself available for the formal assessment sessions that were offered, even though two of them were offered online.

As I have said, she also did not engage with hair strand testing. She says in her final statement in September that this was because she was worried that her association with cannabis users would mean that she would have a false positive test in her hair strand testing. I do not know whether that is true. She also accepts that she has been consuming alcohol at a rate that she accepts is a difficulty, and she has been using drink as a coping mechanism.

It is not clear whether she has really undertaken any therapy. She talked about being discharged from therapy, but she has also talked about being on a waiting list. As I have said, she has longstanding mental health problems, and it is unfortunate to read that she has stopped taking her mental health medication. She recognises in her statement in September that this was perhaps a mistake and she ought to re-engage with her medication. Again, I do not know if she has re-engaged with that.

She has also been in a relationship with somebody called A, who, on her own account, does not appear to have been a positive influence. There was an incident in June when she was arrested for assault and criminal damage, due to, she says, being goaded by A and his friends. It is worrying, then, to see that the relationship with A has now resumed.

As I have said, this mother has a number of longstanding difficulties which are reflected in the Local Authority’s proposed threshold document, which was prepared in August. It refers to the mother’s history of alcohol and substance misuse, her longstanding mental health difficulties, her poor relationship choices, and her inability to maintain a stable home. The mother, in part, accepted that threshold and indicated that she intended to produce further evidence in relation to threshold matters. She has not produced such further evidence.

It may be that the evidence that she was intending to rely upon was the evidence where she says that her life is improving and she now does have, I understand, stable accommodation. If that is the case, then I am afraid that that does not go to threshold, threshold being fixed in time. At the time the Local Authority took protective measures, I am satisfied that the matters pleaded in the threshold document are made out on the evidence that I have read, and that includes the mother’s own evidence in these proceedings.

The fact that the threshold criteria are made out, as I have found, does not automatically lead to a conclusion that a care order should be made, and certainly does not lead to a conclusion that a placement order should be made, bearing in mind that both represent a significant interference in the family life of EL and her mother, and a placement order represents the severance of the legal ties between mother and child and is the most significant interference that this court can authorise.

There is no package of support that I could envisage that would enable this mother to care for EL at this time in their respective lives, or in the near future.

The reality is that there is nobody else available or able to care for EL. Whilst her mother may be able to provide her with love, she simply does not have the resilience or the stability in her own life to provide her with the care that any child of this age needs. The mother invites me to consider foster care as an option for EL to enable the mother to take steps to put her life back on track. It is, of course, EL’s welfare, and it is her welfare throughout her life that is my paramount consideration. Whilst foster care would enable her to maintain a relationship with her mother, the reality is that that relationship has barely got off the ground due to the mother’s difficulties in attending contact.

For a child as young as EL, foster care comes with a raft of instability and insecurity. Foster placements can and often do come to an end, sometimes very abruptly. Foster carers do not give the same level of commitment to a child in their care. Most significant for me, foster care does not offer that sense of belonging to a new family that children of EL’s age need in order to give them stability and a sense of belonging as they grow older.

I accept that adoptive placements are not always without difficulty. Sometimes, adoptive placements break down. Indeed, M’s own experience, whilst a positive experience during her childhood, has not protected her from some of the difficulties she is demonstrating in adulthood. However, in my experience, the vast majority of adoptive placements are well matched to a child and offer that permanence and sense of belonging that all children of this age need.

With careful life story work to enable EL to understand her background and how she has come to be placed for adoption, I would have thought that an adoptive placement would give her the very best chance of achieving her full potential, and is the order, in my view, that is most consistent with her welfare throughout her life.

Turning, then, to the question of contact. Part of the sense of identity that children need, as I understand it from research, is to understand the family that they come from and their sense of belonging in that family. I understand that that gives them a greater sense of stability and security in their adoptive family with that knowledge and that understanding. For those reasons, I have explored with the Local Authority today at this hearing the proposals in respect of post-adoption contact for the mother. They have now clarified that indirect contact will be offered on a twice-yearly basis, as I understand it, and that they will explore with any potential adopters the possibility of post-adoption face-to-face contact on perhaps an annual basis.

I think that is very important. I accept entirely, as I have already observed, that this mother’s commitment to contact has been extremely poor, and that she may well not be able to commit to any contact moving forward. However, from EL’s perspective, I think it is important that that is kept under review, and that the potential for EL to have some post-adoption face-to-face contact with her mother is thought about very carefully moving forward.

EL, as I have already said, has three siblings. One is in Local Authority care, who I anticipate, continues to have contact with family members. I appreciate that their placement will create more difficulties in terms of any ongoing sibling relationship, but I would like the Local Authority to actively consider whether there can be any contact between EL and her eldest sibling. In respect of the two siblings who have been placed for adoption, I welcome the Local Authority’s agreement and commitment to seek adopters who would be willing to promote face-to-face contact between EL and her adoptive siblings. Again, my understanding of the research is that that is what is right for adopted children generally.

I do not propose to make any orders, but I do ask the Local Authority to properly reflect on the revised care plan that they have agreed to file that commitment, and to express it as a positive rather than, as I think has been said several times during this hearing, that professionals would not stand in the way of such contact. In my experience, that passive approach means that contact will not happen. I think it is important, from EL’s perspective, that those that know her, and particularly her social worker, set out in the care plan that when passed on to the Family Finding Team, it is clear that it would be in EL’s interests to be able to have a relationship with her siblings. In addition, as I have said, the issue of contact with her mother should be kept under review.

EL’s welfare throughout her life is my paramount consideration. I hope it is demonstrated through what I have said that I have considered all aspects of the welfare checklist within the Children Act and also within the Adoption and Children Act, given that this is a placement application. I have referred to my recognition that this is a draconian order. It is an order that represents the most significant interference with family life. However, in my view, it is entirely necessary and proportionate in all of the circumstances.

For the sake of completeness, As I have been reminded, I formally dispense with M’s consent to the placement of EL. The Local Authority is, therefore, authorised to place EL for adoption.

I invite the local authority to share a copy of this judgment with any prospective adopters for EL once a match is made.