K and O (Children)

MR JUSTICE FRANCIS: This is my final judgment in care proceedings which have been brought by the local authority, Cardiff City Council. The mother and the children were all born in Poland and lived there until November 2015 when they came to Wales.

K was born on 2 May 2009 and is therefore 8, almost 9 years old. He was in Poland for the first six or so years of his life. O was born on 17 February 2011 and is therefore just 7 years old. He has special health needs, having a diagnosis of cerebral palsy and substantial global developmental delay. He, unfortunately, has not been well but is being well cared for in Wales.

The application for a care order was issued on 7 October 2016 because there was nobody with parental responsibility residing in the United Kingdom and because O, as indicated, had substantial health needs which required regular medical attention. An interim care order was made on 25 October 2016 and has remained in force ever since. The boys have remained in the same foster placements since 23 September 2016.

Concerns were reported to Children's Services in respect of K and O on 22 September 2016 when their stepfather, Mr S, attended Cardiff Bay Police Station to report concerns of sexual abuse to the children perpetrated to them, he said, by the children's mother. Due to Issues of translation and the police officers' availability, Mr S was requested by the police to return on 23 September 2016, when he repeated the very serious allegations.

On 30 September 2016, information was received from Poland Children's Services that the mother and her daughter, J, had arrived in Poland on around 26 August 2016. They apparently travelled to an address in the Zlotow area where they had been staying, at a house that belongs to the mother of Mr N, where she has been staying since.

Information was also provided that the mother and Mr N were planning to get married in November 2016 in Poland. The mother's mother, Mrs G, informed Poland Children's Services that the mother was planning to travel to the UK to come and collect K and O and then take them back to Poland with her. Poland Children's Services also confirmed that they had reported the concerns of J's safety and wellbeing to the local equivalent of our Crown Prosecution Services.

The case put forward by the local authority is that K and O have suffered significant harm by means of possible sexual harm, neglect and abandonment and by virtue of there being no known persons in the UK with parental responsibility for them. In this case, as in all such cases, the burden of proof is on the local authority. They have to satisfy me on the balance of probabilities that the case that they put forward is made out. In fact in this case, as I shall set out shortly, almost all of the threshold allegations and threshold criteria put forward by the local authority and relied upon by them in these proceedings are accepted by the mother.

There was at one stage going to have been a substantial issue for judicial determination about an Article 15 request that had been made for the return of these two boys to Poland and for the Polish courts to be the forum determining the issues relating to their welfare. It is no longer necessary for me to spend very long on that issue because that request has not been pursued. Certainly, given the passage of time, in my judgment that was the right decision for her to make.

Moreover, at the commencement of these proceedings last week she indicated to me, through her counsel, that she was no longer pursuing permission to take O back with her to Poland, recognising that the care that he is receiving here for his complicated medical issues is care that she would not be able to secure for him in Poland. I have no doubt that for her it was with immense difficulties and with a very heavy heart that she made the decision that she did in respect of her son, O, albeit that she had to all intents and purposes already abandoned him here for some considerable period of time in circumstances to which I have just referred.

When the local authority's attention was first brought to these two young boys, K presented as having his personal care and hygiene neglected. He was observed on 23 September 2016 to have very dirty and long finger nails. He had an infected cut on his finger and he was suffering from significant tooth decay.

It is understood that the mother had travelled from her country and left O and K in the care of Mr S, who did not have parental responsibility for the children. And it seemed at the time that the mother had effectively abandoned the two children in this country in the circumstances to which I have just referred.

There were also significant concerns that K and O had been subjected to harm by both their mother and their stepfather, Mr S. It seems that Mr S had known about the disclosures of harm from K for a number of months or at least the allegation that he was making, but he did not report this to the police previously. It seems that either he was, himself, the perpetrator of harm or he had been aware that the children had been subjected to harm and had failed to protect them.

The local authority reported early concerns that Mr S stated during discussions at Cardiff Bay Police Station on 23 September 2016 that he chose to believe that the numerous disclosures made by K were untrue and chose to be cold with him as a result. The local authority took an early view at that stage that the mother and Mr S had subjected both children to significant harm. It is the local authority's position that the children would still be exposed to the risk of significant harm if they were to be returned to their mother's care and I shall, of course, deal with that in the course of this judgment.

The local authority's view is that so far as K is concerned, unless he is cared for in a stable and consistent manner by carers who provide positive and secure care to him; who are able to meet his emotional needs; and allow him to develop a sense of belonging that there is a risk that he could suffer from poor mental health; or substance misuse; become a victim of or perpetrator of abuse; and become involved in criminal activities which would be likely to result in poor lifestyle opportunities with regard to employment, housing, health and family life.

K has expressed different views at different stages. At one point, the evidence of Gemma Thompson, the social worker, was that he had changed his mind on three occasions. When we examined that, it seemed to me that it was not as many occasions as that but certainly K did express a wish at one point to return home. Certainly he has said that if he is to return to home to Poland to go into care, he would much prefer to stay in Wales. As to whether he would wish to go and live with his mother in Poland or remain here, his views have vacillated. But certainly it is clear from the evidence that was given to me by Ms Thompson that he has shown considerable interest in planning the future with Mr and Mrs O and their wider family, to which I will refer later in this judgment. And that on occasions when he has spent time with his mother, he has seemed to be detached from her.

One thing that is completely clear to me on the evidence that I have heard is that K is thriving in the care that he is being given by Mr and Mrs O, his current foster carers. He is playing football. He is doing well at school, he is doing particularly well at maths. And for a boy who had the difficulties that he had less than two years ago and who came to this country speaking almost no English, it is, if I may say so, a remarkable tribute to the care that Mr and Mrs O have provided for him that he has thrived in this way. I will return to say some more things about Mr and Mrs O and the many people that live in their house later in this judgment.

I have been greatly assisted in this case by the independent social worker report of Arthur Gajewski. Mr Jones, who has represented the mother has, if I may so, done absolutely everything that he could have done on behalf of the mother in this case. Mr Jones was hampered by not having been able to meet the mother until last week and he has had to react very quickly to the instructions which he has been given at the last minute. And he has carefully navigated a wise course between careful and effective cross-examination and realising that the evidence was very substantially against the client that he was representing.

Mr Jones had suggested to the independent social worker, Mr Gajewski, that his report was not as effective as one would have wished in a case such as this and that he had relied upon local gossip and hearsay. I understand the reasons why those suggestions were put to Mr Gajewski but it is certainly, in my judgment, not the case. Mr Gajewski's report is extremely thorough and is very clear. And indeed, I think I can say that I have seen very few cases where I have seen the independent social worker, the local authority social worker and the guardian so completely on all fours as that trio of people are in this case. They all have formed the very clear conclusion that both children would be at substantial risk of significant harm if they were to be returned to the care of their mother in Poland.

Indeed, Mr Gajewski said this when being cross-examined by Mr Lock, who represents the guardian, he said:

The reason, of course, why he was referring in that statement to K rather than both boys was because of the concession to which I have already referred that the mother accepted that O would now be staying here in Wales rather than returning to Poland with her.

Mr Gajewski in his report has highlighted some of the difficulties that have arisen in liaising with the Polish Central Authority. Although communication was made promptly and properly and immediately with ICACU in September 2016, it took until 20 March 2017 to receive any form of communication from the Polish Central Authority.

I am always extremely careful when dealing with other jurisdictions not to criticise that other jurisdiction. In this case, there has been some discussion about the Child Protection Services in Poland and although comments have been made which could be said to suggest that they are less than we would have wished them to be here, it is frankly none of our business to criticise Polish Child Protection Services. I have heard no proper evidence about it and I make no comment about the Polish Child Protection Services. I do, however, wish to say here that if the Hague Convention and the proceedings that the Hague countries so often have to take is to be effective, it is essential that there is prompt and effective reaction from the member states. And it is, in my judgment, scandalous that it took the Polish Central Authority so long to react in this case.

This case was transferred to the High Court to consider the issue of jurisdiction that Poland was, in due course, asserting. The matter came before Moor LJ on 19 May 2017, who gave a judgment which is in the file, in which he accepted that there had not been a valid transfer request to Poland under Article 15 and that jurisdiction remained in England and Wales but ought to be considered further. He gave directions to try and engage the mother in the court process and to try and obtain from Poland clear information as to how they wished to proceed to provide care for the children. The mother repeatedly failed to engage with solicitors in Cardiff or to travel to Cardiff for contact and attendance at court.

The mother tells me, and I am prepared to accept, that she did not receive the email communications which were sent to her. It is, however, striking that she left the children alone in this country for as long as she did. Having observed the mother give evidence, it is obvious to me that she is an anxious woman who has been subjected to a very difficult life in Poland. She has, it seems to me, been subjected to an abusive relationship or maybe a series of relationships, that she has now a husband who if he is no longer an alcoholic certainly has been engaged in extremely heavy bouts of drinking. And his mother, that is her husband's mother who also lives with them in their small flat in Poland, it seems has been in the past, if not still is, an extremely heavy drinker. There was reference to her drinking as much as two bottles of vodka a day. I do not know whether that is correct or not but it is obvious that if it is correct, it is an extraordinarily large amount of alcohol.

And so it is not my place here to blame the mother or to criticise the mother. I have very great sympathy for the inadequacies which she has demonstrated. But my task, of course, is to apply the welfare checklist set out so clearly in section 1 of the Children Act and to which I shall in due course return.

The case came before me on 16 June last year. I had given then directions for the independent social worker's report and I listed the matter for Final Hearing before me in October last year, when I was to consider all options for these boys, including the possibility of them returning to Poland.

Despite extensive efforts to engage the mother, as I have said, she did not make any efforts to engage with the proceedings until she came here for the proceedings last week. I am told that the social worker, Ms Thompson had tried to have telephone conversations with her and that the boys' circumstances were fully explained to her. She has, consistently, since those telephone calls asked for the boys to be returned to her care and did ask for contact, including by email and Skype, although Ms Thompson, the social worker, said that the mother did not provide contact details to enable that to take place. She declined the offer to travel to Wales to attend the hearing in June last year, even though Cardiff City Council generously offered to pay for her transport.

When she came to court last week for these proceedings, I am told that she travelled some 27 hours on a bus. Again, this was paid for Cardiff City Council. Quite why the mother did not fly from Poland remains a mystery to me. She told me in evidence that she was not able to get to the relevant airport by 6 am for a flight to, I think I was told, Bristol she could have flown to. I do not think that I will ever get to the bottom of that particular mystery and maybe it does not matter but I would have thought that getting to an airport by 6 am, even if you have to get there the night before and spend some time at the airport is preferable to 27 hours on a bus. I also think it is at least possible if not likely that there are flights later than that in the day. But nevertheless the mother has been here. She has engaged. She has fully instructed her counsel, Mr Jones, and I am satisfied that, as I have said, that everything that could have been said on her behalf has been said.

When the matter came before me for the expected hearing last October, it was necessary for me to adjourn the proceedings because by this time, the mother had indicated that she wished to pursue her Article 15 request and it seemed to me essential that the mother was involved in this process. We had no alternative but to adjourn and here we are now in March dealing with these proceedings and so they are appalling outside the target time limit of 26 weeks. I was satisfied when I adjourned this matter last year and I am satisfied now that the decision was right that the risks of an adjournment were not that substantial given that the boys were to remain with the same carers throughout. And so there has not been much disturbance for them in that sense.

O, as I have said, has extensive care needs as a result of his diagnosis of cerebral palsy and global developmental delay. He was taken extremely unwell following a prolonged epileptic fit on 14 February 2017. He has made substantial recovery since then but requires medication on a regular basis and has very substantial care needs. As I have already indicated, the mother agrees with the local authority's care plan in respect of O and therefore I make a care order in respect of O and approve the care plan put forward by the local authority.

During the course of his enquiries, Mr Gajewski managed to speak to a number of people. I am very careful to note and to remind myself that I have to treat hearsay evidence extremely carefully, particularly when it is reported to me merely by way of a written report. Having said that, I am of course entitled to take hearsay evidence into account, provided I do so cautiously. Having observed Mr Gajewski give his evidence, he was thoroughly professional in his presentation to the court and I have found his written report to be a thoroughly professional and well-produced document.

He said in his report, that Zawadzka J in Poland told him that the mother's family had been known to the court for years. Zawadzka J is reported to have said to Mr Gajewski that she would never place a child with this mother. I am extremely careful to make it clear to everybody that I am not making the order in respect of K, that I have already indicated that I am going to make, that is a supervision order, together with a special guardianship order in favour of Mr and Mrs O, based on the hearsay evidence to which I am referring but based on the very clear and cogent evidence of the social worker, Gemma Thompson and of the guardian. But I obviously take into account what it is I have been told by Mr Gajewski from his enquiries in Poland.

Mr Gajewski said that Zawadzka J stated that she was unable to comment on the mother's current parenting capacity or indeed on the future prognosis in that regard. Mr Gajewski went on to say this: however, she reiterated that in her opinion, the prognosis of the subject children being placed with their mother is none and the word was a direct quote said Mr Gajewski from what the judge had said to him. He said that she used that word in discussions with him. He then said that:

She stated her opinion, he said, that she would support whatever decision the UK court makes in regards to the children's best interests and that she would not insist on her court assuming jurisdiction in this case.

Mr Gajewski said that during his pre-visit phone call, the social workers in Poland confirmed that the mother is not in receipt of any social support benefits but later when they met, they clarified that she has some child support payments for her daughter, J. They said that their department had become involved with the mother following her return from the UK. He said that he understood that this was following information passed on to Polish authorities by Cardiff Children's Services.

He said that in his initial discussions with the social workers, they expressed their strong view that the prognosis concerning this family is poor. They commented, he said, on the mother's home being a regular venue for parties and drinking sessions. The social workers had apparently met with the family recently in the context of gathering information from the Tradycyjna Court, alongside the court guardian, Ms Blas. The social workers quickly formed the view, and he quoted that they would never recommend the children's placement in this family. As I have said, I do not make the decision that I make in this case based on that hearsay information but I nevertheless take it into account and recite it as an important part of the background.

The Polish social workers agreed to facilitate a telephone conversation between Mr Gajewski and a social worker called Ms Cockera, a social worker at Tradycyjna. Ms Cockera's name had come in his earlier discussions with the mother. The mother claimed that she, the family's former social worker in the locality where the mother used to live, could attest to her good parenting skills and practices concerning her children prior to the move to the UK.

What Ms Cockera said was that as a mother, Magda (that is the shortened version of the mother's first name) “did what she did for the kids”. Ms Cockera told Mr Gajewski that she was unaware of any suspicions or allegations of sexual abuse of the children in the household. Similarly, he said that she appeared to have no knowledge of any past or present suggestions of incest within the family unit. She said that the mother did not drink alcohol but frequently used to visit Rafael and give him money to feed his drinking habit.

Ms Cockera described the mother's family as, and I quote, "generational pathology, very messy in places where they lived". Mr Gajewski explained that in Poland, members of the public and professionals alike would routinely refer to families with chronic problems such as child neglect and alcohol abuse and domestic violence as "pathological" in their lifestyle and behaviour. Apparently, Ms Cockera commented to Mr Gajewski, "The kids would be better off staying in the UK".

Mr Gajewski visited the mother's house in Poland. He said that as he approached the house, he noticed that it was in a considerable state of neglect and disrepair, at least on the outside and in the front garden. He took some photographs of the garden, which he attached to the appendix in his report.

Mrs N, that is the husband's mother, said to Mr Gajewski that she gets lonely and upset about the loss of her husband and then has a drink. Apparently, she then said, "And why shouldn't I?" Mr Gajewski said that he enquired whether she had been drinking that day, which he thought that he had and she cheerfully replied, "Two shots of vodka, there's nothing wrong with that is there?" and then she offered Mr Gajewski a drink. It is not my place to criticise the husband's mother to drinking two shots of vodka but certainly the impression that Mr Gajewski formed was that she was substantially more inebriated than would be consistent with that amount.

The independent social worker, Mr Gajewski, concluded and I quote from him, "That there should be no doubt that sending K and O to Poland and thus transferring case jurisdiction to Tradycyjna District Court would not be in the children's best interests." He continued:

He said that he shared that view with the mother during a short telephone conversation as long ago as last August and that she replied by a text a little time later saying that he had arrived at the wrong conclusions and that she would not allow the children to remain in the UK.

Mr Gajewski said that in his opinion the mother's parenting capacity is severely undermined by her personal history and her current circumstances. He said that she has proven not to be adequately discerning in her choice of individuals to associate with and to entrust the care of her vulnerable children to Mr S, amongst others.

It transpired that Mr S has been convicted of sexual offences against children and he served a term of imprisonment of seven years in Poland. We do not have a certificate of conviction but I think that it is reasonable for me to conclude that a term of imprisonment of seven years is really very substantial and that it reflects the severity of the offences that he must have committed. It has not been in dispute during the course of this case that these were sexual offences against children, although we have no more information about them than that.

Mr Gajewski continued that the mother appears to have had a poor experience of being parented herself, growing up in a neglectful and risk-generating home environment. He described the mother as a highly vulnerable individual, which he said was perhaps not surprising given the relationships that she has entered into. I should say at this stage that the children's father has not, at any stage, played any part in these proceedings and is not believed to have what we would refer to as parental responsibility.

Mr Gajewski concluded that he had not doubt that if the mother had lived in the UK with the same personal circumstances as she has now in Poland that Children's Services would have had to have intervened and that she would not have been able to have J in her care. J, of course, is her daughter who lives with her in Poland and is no part of these proceedings, other than issues in relation to contact, which I shall deal with later.

I have had the extremely thorough report from the allocated social worker in this case, Gemma Thompson, and I also heard her give evidence and be cross-examined. I formed the view that she is an extremely experienced and highly effective social worker and this case has been dealt with plainly at a very high level. In my experience, Ms Thompson was one of the best qualified social workers that I have seen in one of these cases for a considerable period of time. She formed the opinion that there should be no doubt that sending K and O to Poland would not be in the best interests of the children.

She said that the parenting assessment, for reasons which are now clear because the mother was in Poland, could not be undertaken in Wales. She described that the mother was invited by her to travel to the UK with the local authority funding her travel and accommodation. Apparently she said to Ms Thompson that her husband forbade her. Ms Thompson could not possibly have made that up and I accept therefore that the mother did say that to her.

The court directed the independent social worker to visit Poland. There were substantial difficulties at one stage in persuading the Polish authorities to allow this independent social work visit. I have already referred to his comprehensive report. As Ms Thompson made clear, it is evident from that report that substantial contact had been made between Mr Gajewski and the mother and a substantial amount of work had been carried out by Mr Gajewski.

When asked about the mother's attachment with the children, Ms Thompson said that the mother had a lot of love to give for the children and I do not doubt that. She said though that the local authority remained concerned about the mother's ability to prioritise. She referred to the issues that I have already referred about the early circumstances in which these children came to the attention of the local authority.

She said that K, when she had observed him with the mother, appeared to be quite distant from the mother and that when they were together, he was apart from her for about 20 minutes and that she appeared to do nothing to draw him back. She observed that K has clearly formed a very positive attachment with his foster carers. She said that if K returned to the care of his mother, he would be in an environment that he was unaware of, that she has a new husband and that it would be a very difficult situation indeed for K to return and to become accommodated in that environment.

She referred to the fact that the mother has applied substantial emotional pressure on K and I was taken to and the mother was taken to a letter which she wrote to K. I need say little about that letter, other than to observe that nothing could better demonstrate the mother's inability to prioritise her children's needs over her own than some of the things that she said in that letter, where she was effectively blaming K for the situation in which this family now finds itself. In saying that, I remind myself that K is not yet 9 years old.

Ms Thompson said that K is an emotionally resilient boy and she put that down mainly due to the stability that he has been afforded by Mr and Mrs O. She described how his English has progressed remarkably, how he is excelling in maths and he has formed friendship groups.

When cross-examined by Mr Lock for the guardian, Ms Thompson said I accept and endorse the view that K would be at risk of significant harm if he were to return to his mother's care in Poland. She continued that it would be detrimental to K's emotional wellbeing if he ended up in state care in Poland. She said that K has formed physical relationships with Mr and Mrs O and is planning holidays with them.

She said that he would miss the contact with O if he was back in Poland. I remind myself that O, by consent, is going to remain living here in Wales. K will be able to visit O. Because of O's medical difficulties, it is not the easiest task for an 8 nearly 9-year-old boy to be spending long periods of time frequently with his badly disabled and ill brother and so the contact may be less frequent than would have been desirable. But nevertheless he will have contact with his brother and there is a severe risk that if K were to return to Poland, he would feel guilty and anxious about his brother.

The local authority has agreed to supervise the contact with O, even when there is no supervision order in place. I have already indicated and repeat here that order that I am going to make is the one that the local authority have asked for, which is a one-year supervision order. Obviously, when that year comes to an end, the local authority will have no continuing obligation to supervise the contact but I accept their offer to do so and they have also, generously in my judgment, agreed to fund the mother's visits from Poland to Wales to see the children. And I accept also that part of the plan that is put forward by the local authority.

As always in these cases, the court has been greatly assisted by the report and the input of the guardian. The guardian, Ms Jones, gave evidence to this court. In many respects, by the time we got to her evidence there was not a great deal more that she could say because she has filed a number of detailed and comprehensive reports. And by the time she gave her evidence, we had already had the evidence of Mr Gajewski and of Ms Thompson.

The guardian was, of course, cross-examined by Mr Jones on behalf of the mother. It was suggested to the guardian that there were many positives about returning K to Poland and that those positives outweighed the negatives. But Ms Jones was resolute in her view, with which I concur, that suggestion by Mr Jones put, of course, on instructions was plainly wrong. She said that there were very substantial risks if K returns to the care of his mother in Poland. She referred, as I have already in his judgment, to the many examples of the mother's inadequate decision making.

Ms Jones, the guardian, said that even today the mother shows no insight in terms of the risk and harm to K. She said, "I simply don't think that the risk can be managed". She said, "In my view, this is not any sense a finely balanced case. I think that the risks are significant and clear." She said, "It's simply not true that Mr Gajewski's report is based on gossip and hearsay." She said, "The independent social worker has made his observations and spoken to others".

As I have said, it is quite a rare case where the opinions and the conclusions of the social worker, the independent social worker and the guardian are so consistent with each other. I am bound to say that this is anything but a finely balanced case. I have listened with very considerable care to all that has been said to me and my failure to recite everything that has been said by counsel both in writing and in their submissions does not mean that I have not taken them into account.

In particular, I bear in mind what Mr Jones very properly reminded me of that we are not dealing here with social engineering. We are not allowed simply to take a child from good-enough parenting to something that we may consider to be economically or socially easier. That is not any part of my task at all. It is nothing to do with this case. I am dealing with harm and risk and I accept the conclusions that have been reached by the independent social worker, the social worker and the guardian that K would be at risk of significant harm if he were to return to live in Poland with his mother.

I also bear in mind the authorities to which Mr Jones has referred to me where numerous judges on numerous occasions have said that we must not impose our own views on what we think is right about the way to bring children up that society must embrace a variety of different lifestyles and different ways of doing things. I fully subscribe, of course, to that. But this is not about an exceptional or an odd or an unusual but nevertheless safe environment. This is a case about an environment which has been described as unsafe and the words, "significant harm" are apposite to it.

I remind myself of the paramountcy principle and of the welfare checklist and I briefly set out my position in relation to the checklist in section 1(3) of the Children Act. I have to have regard, in particular, the ascertainable wishes and feelings of the child concerned, considered in the light of his age and understanding. While I bear in mind that K is not yet 9 years old, at that age he of course is old enough to express a view but it would not be a view that would be determinative of his future unless it was consistent with the views of the professionals. While K's view has, as I have indicated, not always been consistent, one thing that is clear is that he does not want to be in care in Poland. That would be a disaster for him, given the opportunities that he is able to enjoy here. I cannot rule out the possibility that he might end up in care in Poland if he were to be there.

K has, of course, from time to time expressed the view that he would wish to be with his mother and I have no doubt that he loved and loves his mother. I have also no doubt that his mother loves him. But, as I have indicated, the pressure that his mother has put him under, for example in that letter, is frankly intolerable for him. I take into account that K appears to be settled with the O family, which he now considers to be his family.

Turning to his physical, emotional and educational needs, I have indicated that it is my judgment that the mother is unable to meet K's physical, emotional and educational needs. I have set out the reasons for that already.

I have to consider the likely effect on him of any change in his circumstances. It is fundamental to this case. K has had the most deeply troubled young childhood and yet for the last 18 months or so he has now been in a settled environment with a family that seems to be surrounded by love and support. And the consequences of a change in his circumstances would be devastating for him and it is not a risk that I am prepared to take.

I take into account his age, sex, background and any characteristics of his which the court considers relevant. While I have referred to him as being nearly nine, he is a Polish boy and it is important to have regard to his Polish heritage. I understand that there are Polish neighbours with whom he can converse and that funding is going to be made available by the local authority for him to have Polish lessons. It is, of course, essential that he grows up in touch with his Polish heritage and I encourage Mr and Mrs O to allow him to mix with other Polish children if that is possible, so that he can learn about his country or continue to learn about his country and speak Polish with them.

I have to consider any harm which he has suffered or is at risk of suffering. It is absolutely clear from everything that I have read and which I have summarised in this judgment that he has suffered harm. He was abandoned in this country for many, many, many months by his mother. The mother has given different reasons for that, one of them being to do with her need to renew her identity card. I do not think that, again, anyone will ever get to the bottom of that piece of evidence but accepting as I shall that she did return to Poland because her identity card needed to be renewed, the fact is that she did not return.

Much more importantly than the past, of course, is the future and I have already recounted the views of the three key professionals in this case that K is at risk of suffering significant harm if he returns to his mother in Poland. I have to consider how capable each of his parents and any other person in relation to whom the court considers the question to be relevant is of meeting is needs, although there is no father on the scene to consider. I have already explained the mother's circumstances and formed the sad conclusion that she is not capable of meeting his needs. It is absolutely clear to me that Mr and Mrs O have been meeting his needs and will be able to continue to do so.

I have to consider the range of powers available to the court under the Act and the proceedings in question. While I have already indicated that I am going to make a supervision order, which will provide additional protection for K during the coming year. I am not going to recite for the purposes of this judgment the matters set out in the threshold document because they are almost all agreed. The mother, as I have indicated, crucially has accepted that the children have suffered emotional harm, sexual abuse and neglect.

I am only going to deal with the threshold criteria that are not accepted by the mother. Number 4(b) is that the children's dental health has been neglected and/or the mother failed to provide them with a healthy and nutritious diet and as a result O has subsequently required six teeth to be extracted and K has also required dental treatment because of tooth decay. In many respects, in the context of the findings that I have made, that is not a particularly significant matter but it is clear to me that the children have suffered from tooth decay, they have had teeth extractions, their personal hygiene was poor and they were not given a nutritious diet.

That, in fact, I think is the only one of the disputed allegations on the threshold schedule. It is important the threshold document is appended to this judgment and kept on the court file.

Finally, I want to deal with the application for a special guardianship order that has been made by Mr and Mrs O. I asked them to give short evidence, not because there was any particular desire by anybody to cross-examine them but I thought that it was important that I heard directly from them and they both gave sworn evidence, sitting in the witness box together.

They have, if I may say so, a remarkable family. They have four daughters, all of whom appear to be successfully making their way in life. They have fostered an enormous number of children and have a number of children living in their house at the moment. They have fostered an Egyptian boy, a Portuguese boy and so they have considerable experience, not only of fostering British children but foreign children as well. I am completely satisfied that they will do everything in their power to ensure that K grows up with full knowledge of his Polish heritage.

Mrs O does, at least sometimes, go to church and take communion and will be able to take K to the Catholic church, of course he coming from a predominantly Catholic country, so that he will grow up with that aspect of his cultural background respected as well. They have agreed to, and I am satisfied that they will, promote contact between K and his brother and promote contact between K and his mother when she comes from Poland.

I am frequently in this job surrounded by horrible situations with a lot of very difficult people in very difficult circumstances and it is a great pleasure to see that those tragedies are counterbalanced by people who have the goodness that I see in Mr and Mrs O. And I want to thank them on behalf of this court for the work that they do. Without people doing the work that they do, I cannot imagine how Children's Services would cope and so I thank them for that. I have no doubt at all that the special guardianship order that they seek should be made and I make the order that they have requested.