This decision is part of the Family Courts Information Pilot - please tell us how useful you found the information by participating in this brief survey.
The judgment is being distributed on the strict understanding that in any report, no person may be identified by name or location (Other than a person identified by name in the judgment itself) and that in particular the anonymity of the children and the adult members of their family must be strictly preserved
Neutral Citation Number:  EWCC 27 (Fam)
RE: E & H (Minors)
1. This is one of the cases that falls within a transparency pilot scheme for the production of an anonymised judgment, so I will give a short judgment although the case is unopposed.
2. The case before me today is an application by X Metropolitan Borough Council. They seek care orders in respect of three children: 'A', who was born on (date given); and twins, 'B' and 'C', who were born on (date given).
3. There is substantial evidence filed by the local authority indicating that these children have suffered the most terrible history of neglect. They have been subject to an eight-year violent and chaotic relationship between Miss 'G', their mother, and a Mr 'H'. The children witnessed violence and chaos, had poor home conditions, excessive chastisement and serious attachment problems. The Guardian's position statement describes 'a total failure to prioritise the needs of the children'. I have read the papers and I can concur with that final statement.
4. It is very clear the mother has no understanding of the needs of these, or indeed any, children. She has had a dependence on drugs and a lifestyle which follows from that. This has been a major feature in the case. The mother has been given the opportunity of a cognitive functioning test on three occasions earlier on in the proceedings and has failed to comply. She has failed to instruct her solicitors for a considerable length of time and effectively has taken no part during the proceedings and does not appear today.
5. The local authority's care plan is that the children should be made the subject of care orders. 'A' is the eldest. She has been exposed to this inadequate parenting for the longest and is therefore extremely damaged. There are quite graphic descriptions of her sexualised behaviour, her swearing, her eating disorders and so forth early in the papers, but it is with great pleasure that I read in the latest documentation that she has made significant progress whilst in the care of the local authority and that indeed the foster carer who has facilitated that progress is to be her long-term carer. The local authority have made a referral to CAMHS and it is clear that this child 'A' will require their support and assistance over a considerable period of time.
6. The younger two children, 'B' and 'C', are placed with relatives who have been assessed as suitable for their future care and again they have improved dramatically whilst in foster care. They too receive support from CAMHS and may continue to need that for some time.
7. I am grateful to the local authority for providing care plans and particularly approving long-term placements for these children which clearly meet their very diverse and understandable needs. It is very clear to me that parental input for these children has been detrimental to them and that since the local authority have assumed responsibility for them, their situation has improved beyond measure, so it is clearly in the children's best interest to be made the subject of final care orders which place all three of them in the care of the local authority.
8. So I make those care orders and I approve the care plans for the children. I make no orders for costs, save public funding assessment.