Birmingham City Council v M & Ors

I am concerned with A who is nine months old; and C who is 13 years of age and who suffers from global developmental delay.

There has been Local Authority involvement since 2012. There has been a previous child and family assessment on 31^st October 2024 where there were concerns as to the risk of neglect which was non-purposeful, and I note that there has been a Section 47 assessment on 16^th August 2024 and an initial child protection conference on 3^rd September 2024. To summarise, this set out that C had been exposed to sexualised behaviour and sexual assault in relation to the mother and exposure to physical harm and abuse.

Mum has a mild learning disability. She is vulnerable and is at risk of sexual exploitation by adult males. There has been a ParentAssess assessment on 29^th January 2025 which highlighted a number of deficits with her parenting for which she would benefit from a further period of assessment. To that extent she participated in a 12-week residential assessment which concluded, sadly, negatively. Mum struggled to meet the competing needs of both children on a consistent basis and to safeguard them from harm despite being provided with learning and teaching. It concludes as follows:

“We do not consider that without 24/7 oversight and supervision mum would be able to safely manage and provide adequate care to either child”.

There are no alternative carers. The father is not known.

The Local Authority initially sought removal on the basis that the gap between the care the children could be given and the care the children need could not realistically be bridged by the services that they could provide. The child’s guardian at that stage was concerned that there was a gap in the evidence whereby the Local Authority had not conducted an analysis as to whether the mother could care for one or both children given the age gap, albeit with support in the community and liaison with adult services pursuant to a Care Act assessment, and the Local Authority’s duty and responsibility towards vulnerable parents. The issue therefore being one of support and the potential for a multi-agency core group to identify the needs deficits and resources with regard to parenting with support. The mother, at the outset, echoed those concerns.

On 16^th May 2025 I made an interim care order for removal following the conclusion of the residential placement with provision that the Local Authority should continue to look for a placement with support for mum with at least C. I gave a judgment which I published and is available at (2025) EWFC 205 (B). This should be read alongside this judgment. I will not repeat what I said therein verbatim.

Following on from that, the Local Authority filed a statement starting that they intended not to make any further assessment of the mother, albeit they will continue to liaise with adult social care to explore support available to her. The children’s guardian, in response, was still concerned as to there being no detailed analysis of mum’s ability to care for C and the support that could be put in place.

By order of 3^rd June 2025, I remarked that an holistic approach was needed regarding the adult social services team and the ability of mum to care for one or both children and engage with Parenting in Partnership. I note a statement from the Local Authority thereafter as to enquiries to be made in relation to supported living accommodation and then a statement also from adult care whereby the mother admits to letting strangers into her property as she feels lonely. The subsequent Care Act assessment confirms that mother needs prompts and support to keep her home in order and that she is vulnerable to exploitation.

An addendum report from Dudley Lodge was directed to address the gaps in mum’s ability to care for one child in the community, with or without support. Mum’s care of C being largely neglectful, albeit not purposeful. It is recorded that the mother did not provide spontaneous warmth or interaction in managing C’s emotions, despite significant work being undertaken. She struggled to deal with his behaviour, which she accepted. Concerns also remained with regards to mum’s association with unknown males and the risks this presents, and therefore her insight remained limited, and she required 24/7 oversight.

The children’s guardian’s response to that was that the assessment at the residential unit was undertaken whilst mother was caring for a newborn baby; a task the Local Authority knew from the chronological history she was not able to do, due to her cognitive difficulties. Yet mum was able to care for C on her own since 4^th May 2023. Prior to then she had been supported by her family. The guardian remained concerned that there was no analysis of what support could be provided to the mother such that the risk of exploitation could be mitigated.

In my order of 8^th July 2025, it was noted that the Local Authority were unable to find any suitable accommodation to enable mum to care for one or both of the children safely, but an assessment needed to be undertaken by adult social services, bearing in mind the fact that she met the criteria for support. A support plan had yet to be completed. It was also considered that a specialist assessment was required as to mum’s capability to care for C by way of an independent social work assessment as well as a sibling assessment, and the matter thereafter was timetabled to an Issues Resolution Hearing.

There is an agreed threshold document. However, I still need to make formal findings in relation to the threshold having been met.

Following on from my order there has been a parenting assessment by an independent social worker who sadly comments that there is very little evidence available that mum would not continue to expose the children to risk and that she is sadly unable to meet the children’s basic needs without significant support.

The Together and Apart assessment highlights the large age gap between the children and their differing needs, that C’s behaviour was becoming more challenging and impacting on A and therefore it is not essential that both children are placed together, but the sibling bond needed to be maintained. In essence, A needs the security of an adoptive placement given her young age as opposed to remaining in long-term foster care for the duration of her growing years.

The Local Authority’s final position is for C for long-term foster care, which has been endorsed by the independent reviewing officer. He is currently in a residential care home separate from A due to the breakdown of the previous placement and that he will remain there until a long-term foster care placement can be identified.

For A the plan is one of adoption, which again is endorsed by the independent reviewing officer and the agency decision maker. It concludes that the level of risk, if placed back in mother’s care is high, and the level of change that is required is too great and beyond the children’s timescales.

In mother’s final evidence, to her credit, she supports the Local Authority’s plans but would wish for C’s contact to continue once per week. She would also like to receive regular photos of A as she grows up and would request further information in relation to sibling contact.

The children’s guardian’s final recommendations and report sets out that:

“Mum is a victim of an extended history of sexual exploitation and abuse and she is vulnerable as a result. This is not her fault. She faces significant challenges to improve her parenting and the level of support needed at this time is not realistic. C is currently happy at his current residential placement and would wish to stay there. He would want to write to A and send and receive video messages. He would also like to see his aunt and cousins”.

The guardian suggests that C may need to be placed with positive role models, preferably by way of a couple or in a smaller residential placement, but at this stage he would benefit from a BERRI assessment to determine the ultimate placement type to inform that ultimate decision. He wants to continue to see his mum once a week and that should continue.

The guardian feels that following adoption for A, post-adoption contact will be positive for her and the Local Authority should actively look for such a placement and to encourage prospective carers to meet with the mother. In essence there needs to be a comprehensive plan for A with regard to mother’s contact and C’s prior to adoptive placement including one-to-one time between the siblings and also with the mother together and separately to inform the prospective adoptive placement as to future contact. She remarks that C would benefit from being the only child in a placement.

As I have said, mother has taken an extremely child focussed decision to accept the Local Authority’s plans and does not stand in the way of a placement order such that her consent does not have to be dispensed with.

As I have indicated, I have made placement directions and for future information for prospective adoptive parents it is important that the children’s guardian’s recommendations and the reasons for them in relation to the mother’s stance and post-adoption contact is set out as fully as possible so that they are informed as to that including mum’s child focussed decision in relation to consenting to the Local Authority’s plan.

In relation to threshold, I find that threshold is crossed to enable me to make final care orders. I note that mum in her response document believes that she could meet the children’s basic needs and sought to challenge the residential unit assessment of her, but I find that, sadly, she cannot. That is not her fault. She has done everything in order to achieve the possibility of rehabilitation with either one or both children to her care, but at this moment in time it is beyond her, but her efforts have been considerable.

I am especially pleased with the Local Authority who are open to the guardian’s suggestions in relation to mum meeting the adopters and potentially having post-adoption contact and for active searches to be made in relation to adopters who are amenable to that.

They agree that C’s contact will be once a week with mum and will continue and once a month contact with the aunt and the cousins, the latter being unsupervised. There will be a reduction in mum’s contact with A to fortnightly, including with C for two sessions, and that will also include one-to-one time with A at the beginning and end of contact, as suggested by the guardian, and then monthly thereafter. They also agree for a BERRI assessment to determine the placement for C. Clearly an amended care plan will be required in relation to that.

I appreciate the importance of children being brought up by their birth family. I appreciate that the Local Authority are under a duty to promote that wherever possible. I accept that there is an evidential burden on the Local Authority that must be met prior to making final care orders as set out in Section 31 of the Children Act, known as “the threshold test”. As I have already indicated, on the evidence available to the Court, threshold I find is met in this case and therefore I make final orders accordingly in accordance with Re D(Threshold Findings and Final Orders at IRH) [2025] EWCA Civ 1362.

Of course, following from that, I must then still decide what orders to make, and where orders are made under the Children Act in relation to C I have to have regard to the welfare test under Section 1 of the Children Act 1989 to determine what, if any, order is necessary to safeguard the welfare of the child having regard to the Articles 6 and 8 rights of both the child and the parents. I have to ask myself whether the continued removal of a child from his parents is proportionate to the risk of harm to which they would be exposed if they were allowed to return to the parent’s care by undertaking a global holistic evaluation of the options available for the child’s future upbringing.

I am satisfied in this case that in relation to C a final care order is proportionate in this matter and is the only realistic option available.

In respect of A, I have to have regard to the fact that the Court should only permanently separate a child from their parent if satisfied it is necessary to do so and nothing else will do, and this particularly arises where the plan is one of adoption, the most serious of all orders, one which will sever the parental relationship altogether. Such orders are a very extreme thing and a last resort, and because I am required to consider making a placement order I must have regard to Section 1 of the Adoption & Children Act 2002.

In evaluating the whole of the evidence in relation to the checklist under the Adoption & Children Act Section 1(4) and treating the child’s welfare as paramount and in comparing the available options before the Court, I am driven to the conclusion that a placement order is the only order that can meet A’s immediate and life-long welfare needs and that mum, to her credit, realises that, but I still nevertheless have to scrutinise the evidence before the Court to be satisfied that this is the appropriate order.

I am therefore driven to the conclusion that a final care order for C is necessary and proportionate; and in relation to A, a placement order is the only order that can meet her immediate and life-long welfare needs and is necessary and proportionate having regard to the Article 8 rights of the mother and the child.

That is my judgment and the reasons for it.