This judgment was delivered in private. The Judge has given leave for this version of the judgment to be published on condition that (irrespective of what is contained in the judgment ) in any published version of the judgment the anonymity of the children and members of their family must be strictly preserved. All persons including representatives of the media must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so will be a contempt of court.

No.  AI13C00010

IN THE BARNET COUNTY COURT
IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN ACT 1989
AND IN THE MATTER OF ME ML AND MCL (CHILDREN)

St Mary’s Court, Regent Park Road
Friday, 7th March 2014

Before:

HER HONOUR JUDGE VENABLES
(In Private)
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

B E T W E E N :

		LONDON BOROUGH OF ENFIELD	Applicant

-  and  -

(1)	CL
(2)	AL	Respondents
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Transcribed by BEVERLEY F. NUNNERY & CO.
Official Court Reporters and Audio Transcribers
One Quality Court, Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1HR
Tel:  020 7831 5627     Fax:  020 7831 7737
info@beverleynunnery.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MR. T. PARKER (instructed by Legal Services Department)  appeared on behalf of the Applicant.

MR. J. AGEROS (instructed by Lawrence & Co.)  appeared on behalf of the 1st Respondent.

MS. S. BRADLEY (instructed by Hopkin Murray Beskine)  appeared on behalf of the 2nd Respondent.

MS. A. DIXON (instructed by Shepherd Harris Solicitors)  appeared on behalf of the Guardian.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
J U D G M E N T

JUDGE VENABLES: 

1	This is the adjourned final hearing of the application of the London Borough of Enfield for care orders and placement orders relating to three children, namely ME (D.O.B 25.06.09), ML (D.O.B 28.04.11) and MCL (D.O.B 29.10.12).

2	The matter was last before me in December 2013 where I heard evidence over five days.  This judgment should be read in conjunction with my earlier judgment given on 17th December.  It has been agreed between counsel that I deal with the balance of matters today by submissions.  

3	Within my earlier judgment I set out my assessment of the evidence.  However, I felt unable to undertake an evaluation of the competing options for the children as I considered that the court needed further information before it could do so.  The information I considered outstanding was as to:

i)	The resources available to support the family if they moved to Redcar.
ii)	Family support to be achieved through a family group conference if practicable.
iii)	Assessment of sibling attachment.
iv)	Re BS analysis of all placement options.

4	I gave a clear timetable for the work and I directed the parents to identify the names of family members they sought to look to for support by 23rd December 2013.  The timetable was necessarily tight.  These proceedings had been ongoing for almost 9 months by the time they were first allocated to me.

5	The parents’ case was founded on a plan to move to Redcar to be supported by family members.  This plan had first been formulated in June 2013.  Unfortunately, the parents were only able to produce the name of one further family member during the adjournment.  The local authority gave two extensions of time for names of individuals to be produced by the parents so as to enable an effective family group conference to be set up.  

6	Sadly, the parents were unable to produce any other names.  Thus, the local authority, by agreement with the children’s guardian and the parents, called a network meeting in place of the family group conference I had ordered.  The purpose of this meeting was to look at what support the family could provide for the parents.

7	Mrs. RL and Mrs. PG were provided with a copy of the judgment given by me on 17th December to enable them to understand the issues for the court.  The note of the network meeting has been produced by the local authority and is contained at p.G44 of my bundle.  

8	During the meeting, the extended family offered the following support:

a)	Mrs. RL (now 73) would move in with the family for at least two years.

b)	Mrs. PG would provide emotional support and parenting advice on the telephone.  She further agreed that she would visit occasionally.

9	Mrs. JD, the paternal grandmother’s friend (aged 55), was unable to attend the network meeting because of work commitments.  It is acknowledged that she can only give support remotely for the family and that support being given principally to the grandmother.  

10	Mrs. PG has some 30 years’ experience in children’s services.  She has not seen Mr. AL for 22 years.  The last occasion on which she saw him was at a family funeral.  Mrs. PG has offered to help the parents make contact with other family members.  I am told that there is to be a meeting of the wider family on 9th March.  

11	Before the network meeting, Mrs. PG wrote to the local authority to set out details of the support she could offer and a copy of her email has been provided to the court.  In her email of 15th January, she says this:

“As we have discussed in our previous conversations, I would like to clarify the precise nature of what I am prepared to offer AL and his family should the decision be made to return the children to their parents’ care and the family move to live in the North of England.

My role would be quite limited in its contribution to the robust and overarching multi-agency protection plans which will be put in place for all of the children.

I would offer some telephone support to Mrs. RL as well as the occasional face to face meeting with her.  Depending on how the situation develops, I would probably have some contact with Mr. AL and his wife when, hopefully, the family’s support network starts to be more firmly established.”  

12	The local authority has made extensive enquiries of the Redcar local authority resources.  With my permission, the London Borough of Enfield disclosed the court bundle to Redcar.  The head of children’s services referred the matter to the manager within the children’s services team who confirmed:-

i)	The local authority would conduct their own initial assessment.

ii)	In view of the children’s ages, the family would be supervised under the local authority’s “early help” scheme which enables families to access support groups and child development groups.  

iii)	A family support worker would be appointed.  The family support worker would not be qualified but would be supported by qualified staff.

iv)	Monthly visits under a supervision order.

v)	Fortnightly visits under a care order.

vi)	There would be no financial support under a supervision order.

vii)	Access to a health visitor.

viii)	Mrs. CL would be invited to a mental health centre for an initial assessment.

ix)	The local authority has its own community mental health trust.

The London Borough of Enfield obtained a list of housing agencies.  The London Borough of Enfield do not anticipate that housing would be a difficult matter to resolve.

13	The local authority has also reported on its assessment of sibling attachment in line with the court’s direction.  Mr. Croft and Mrs. Grover have liaised with CAMHS, with the contact supervisor, with the foster carers and have further observed contact before completing their assessment.

14	The local authority says ME is increasingly showing signs of an emotionally neglected child.  At para.26, p.C152 of my bundle, they say this:

“This has been highlighted by the CAMHS worker who states that during sessions carried out with ME, she will show no bond or positive attachment towards her brothers, despite constant encouragement to talk about them or show her affection towards them through play or art activities.  

This is also something that has been highlighted by the foster carer for ME, who states that she does not interact with ML at all within the home.  When encouraged to talk about her brothers and what they did during contact, for instance, she has never once replied.  The carer tries to encourage ME to interact with ML and show him some affection.  However, she reportedly has never shown any level of interest towards him despite being placed together for a year. 

ME is described by her CAMHS worker as a child who is very shut down and closed off, and someone who shows similar characteristics to those of a neglected child.  In the opinion of CAMHS, ME has not had a positive and consistent parental mind available to her in order for her to develop her own identity which results in her acting closed off and being unable to form positive attachments.  This would correlate with the amount of times she has been in and out of care at such a young age.

ME is a child who requires a great deal of one to one work and nurturing from a carer or an adoptive family that will work at her pace and allow her to continue to develop within a stable and permanent placement.  Careful consideration will need to be given to the exact type of care and support she will require in the future, but CAMHS are very committed to working with ME and any potential adoptive family to ensure that when a placement is sought for her, either alone or with her brothers, then it will be the right placement that will allow her to thrive and reach her full potential in all aspects of her life.”

15	As to MCL and ML, their relationship has been impacted by their separation in their foster placements.  They are full siblings.  However, at para.29 of Mr. Croft’s statement, he says this of their relationship:

“ML and MCL currently see each other for several hours per week during contact.  It has been noted that, at times, the two boys argue and show little attachment to one another.  It is clear that MCL is jealous of ML in the attention that he gets, often resulting in MCL acting aggressively towards ML and pushing him over, for instance.  

However, it would be fair to say that this level of jealously between two such siblings would be normal and will be heightened by the fact that they not only have to share their parents’ affection during contact times but also because they are currently placed in separate placements which has not allowed them the chance to develop a strong attachment to each other.”

16	The local authority’s plan for the children remains for  all three children to be placed together in an adoptive placement, but if they cannot be placed together the London Borough of Enfield would look to a separate placement for ME where she would be the youngest child.  

17	ME is delayed in speech and presents as closed down.  The local authority say her level of need will require very sensitive, focused and stable care.  She has been in care three times in her short life.  Firstly, in July 2010, then from May 2011 until February 2012 and since January 2013 to date.  

18	The boys are more robust than ME but they, too, have been affected by the history of their care.  MCL has been in care from January 2013 to present, and before that from May 2011 to February 2012.  The local authority has made further enquiries as to the Borough’s success in placing sibling groups made up of two or three children.  At p.C154, para.2 of Mr. Croft’s statement he says this:

“The local authority thought the court may find it useful to have an idea of placement statistics.  So after further consultation with Enfield’s adoption team, we were able to analyse the team’s past success rate regarding the placement of sibling groups.  Over the past five years, the team has only managed to place one sibling group of three.  With regard to two siblings, between 2009 and 2010, there was one sibling group of two placed.  In 2010/2011, there were three.  In 2011/2012, there were two.  In 2012/2013, there were three and from 2013 to date, there have been two sibling groups of two placed.”

19	Thus, the local authority’s plan is founded on a recognition that the children are unlikely to be placed together, notwithstanding the local authority’s primary aim to find an adoptive placement for all three children.  

20	The local authority’s BS analysis of placement options does not recommend long term foster care.  The children are very young.  The possibility of the children remaining “looked after” for their minority was not actively pursued by any party.  It is noteworthy that the local authority were unable to obtain a three sibling placement for the children’s time in short term foster care.  The local authority remain firmly of the view that long term foster care does not offer the lifetime security that the children require.  

21	The local authority now invites the court to find that the deficits/gaps in the parents’ care, as identified at para.60 of the judgment of 17th December, cannot be satisfactorily met by the resources that would be available in Redcar, nor, indeed, by the support of the family.  Thus, when conducting the necessary holistic evaluation of all of the placement options, the local authority say that the only one which meets the welfare needs of the three children is that of adoption.

22	The children’s guardian, Ms. Weekes, readily engaged in the follow-up enquiries set in train by this court.  She travelled to the network meeting in Redcar on 27th January, but because of problems with the train, she was delayed.  Nonetheless, she managed to speak to Mrs. PG by telephone. 

23	Ms. Weekes acknowledges that Mrs. PG has extensive knowledge of child protection services and welfare issues.  She notes that Mrs. RL senior is prepared to move in with the family for at least two years, that is, until the children are 7, 5 and 4 respectively.

24	Ms. Weekes accepts that there are services within Redcar that are aimed at safeguarding the children and supporting the parents in meeting the children’s emotional and physical needs.  However, the guardian, like the local authority, does not feel that the resources and the family support offers sufficient safeguards to protect the welfare of the children.

25	Mrs. RL is now 73.  She is prepared to be present within the family home for up to two years.  The guardian observes that the physical presence of Mrs. RL senior does not address the underlying conflict within the parental relationship and its consequences for mother’s mental health and the children’s care.

26	Ms. Weekes is concerned that Mrs. RL was not open about Mrs. CL’s psychotic episode in July 2010, and that her loyalty to her son, Mr. AL, compromises her ability to robustly monitor and protect the three small children with whom I am concerned.

27	The children’s guardian is concerned that the time-limited nature of Mrs. RL’s intensive support will end when the children are still very much in early childhood.  The fundamental issue for the children’s guardian remains the parents’ insight, motivation and engagement.

28	Ms. Dixon, on behalf of the children’s guardian, submits that the package of support proposed and the support offered within the family does not meet the risks identified by the court in December 2013.  The guardian reminds the court that at a very practical level, the parents have persistently refused to release the children’s “red books” to enable the children to have their immunisations.  

29	This issue was brought to the attention of the court in September and again in December.  On each occasion the parents offered to surrender the “red books” or to provide copies.  They did not do so.  In consequence, ML is still behind with his immunisations.  

30	The children’s guardian further notes that the parents first raised the possibility of moving to Redcar to be with family in July 2013.  In December, Mr. AL asserted that they had family there who would support them.  Yet, when the court created the opportunity for  a further  family group conference he was unable to  provide the names of family members who would attend such conference  save for the sole name of Mrs. PG.

31	It would appear that Mrs. PG is prepared to offer assistance, albeit on a remote basis to the family, but she has not seen Mr. AL for some 22 years.  Put simply, the children’s guardian has no confidence that the wider family and external agencies can meet the identified risks and further has no confidence in the parents’ abilities to engage with professionals in a way that would ensure the safeguarding needs of the children can be met.

32	These proceedings have been ongoing since January 2013.  The children have been in and out of care since May 2011.  ME has been removed from her parents’ care on three separate occasions.  Looking at the sibling attachments and the individual profile of the children, the guardian shares the concerns of the local authority as to the presentation of ME.

33	At paras.10-13, in the report prepared for this adjourned hearing the children’s guardian says this:

“I visited the children at their foster placements on 4th February 2014 and requested and received updating information about ME’s progress at school dated 17th February 2014.

ME, during my visit, engaged well with me on a one to one basis to complete her puzzle, and whilst talking about her friends at school.  However, the view expressed by her foster carer is echoed in the letter from her school.  That is that ME is generally very much on the outside of events around her.  She talks about her friends but actually rarely engages with them.  With her brothers, and in particular ML, she does not talk about them and makes little to no effort to engage with them.

The information from CAMHS suggests that ME presents as an emotionally neglected child.  One has to question how much ME’s early life experience in the care of her mother at a time when her mother’s illnesses were not managed well and her mother was physically and emotionally vulnerable has impacted on ME’s early attachment development.

One has to question how much the removal from her mother’s care and placement with foster carers has impacted on her attachment development.  One also has to question the impact of parental alcohol misuse and domestic violence on her attachment development.  It will only be through further work with ME that answers will become clearer.  ME needs to be placed within a family setting where she can learn and experience on a consistent basis, that there are people/carers that are emotionally and physically available to her, that she can rely on adults to protect her and to meet her needs whether or not she seeks it out.

When considering the local authority’s placement for adoption and her specified needs, I would argue that ME is likely to benefit from a placement where she is the youngest or only child.”

34	Thus, the guardian argues that the particular needs of ME suggest that she would benefit from placement where she is the youngest or an only child.  As to ML and MCL, the children’s guardian highlights the emotional distance between the boys which is, in part, a consequence of their separation in care.  Both  boys are meeting their developmental milestones and there are no major concerns, save that ML is behind in his immunisations because his “red book” has not been available.

35	Mr. AL and Mrs. CL are both very disappointed that they were unable to provide the names of any other family members who might support them.  Mr. AL says, as he said to me in December, he had found the whole concept of telling family and friends about his family problems embarrassing and shameful.  Mrs. Bradley, on behalf of the father, tells me that he has travelled to Redcar five times to try to find family members who might be able to help.  I am told that the large family gathering set for 9th March has been initiated by Mrs. PG.

36	Mrs. Bradley tells me that Mrs. PG has spoken to Mr. AL and Mrs. CL about the need for openness and cooperation and, as a consequence, Mr. AL has a better understanding of what is required of him.  Mr. AL’s latest statement of evidence stresses his regrets about his lack of openness in the past and asks the court to give him and his wife another chance.

37	Counsel for Mrs. CL has filed a long and detailed position statement which reminds the court of its positive observations about mother’s developing insight into the management of her mental health difficulties.  It also reminds the court that mother has maintained abstinence from alcohol since February 2013.  

38	Mr. Ageros further reminds the court  that Mother loves the children very much and asks the court to give the couple a last chance to show that they can work cooperatively with family and with agencies.  

39	In any public law proceedings where the local authority invites the court to make a care or supervision order, s.31(2) of the Children Act 1989 says this:

“(2) A court may only make a care order or supervision order if it is satisfied - 

a)	That the children concerned is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm; and

b)	That the harm or likelihood of harm is attributable to – 

i)	The care given to the child, or likely to be given to him if the order were not made, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give to him.”

40	In this case, the threshold has been agreed between the parties and there is an agreed statement of threshold contained at p.A73 of my bundle.  That threshold statement records as follows:

1)	All parties accept that on 26th January 2013 (the relevant date) the children were suffering, or likely to suffer, significant harm.  The harm was attributable to the care being given to the children by the parents, not being what it is reasonable to expect a parent to give.

2)	Previous harm  

The children are the subject of supervision orders made on 12th September 2012 during care proceedings.  Within those proceedings it was accepted that the children had suffered owing to the mother’s mental health problems, numerous incidents of domestic violence between the parents, periods of imprisonment in respect of both parents and alcohol misuse.  A copy of the agreed threshold is attached.

3)	Domestic violence  

On 26th January 2013 at 5 a.m. the mother was arrested by the police following an allegation that she had assaulted the father.  The parents accept that there was an assault with an implement that caused substantial bruising/cuts to Mr. AL.  The children were present in the home at the time of the attack.

4)	Alcohol misuse/mental health issues

At the time of the assault on 26th January 2013, the mother was under the influence of alcohol.  Alcohol affects the mother’s anti-psychotic medication and is known to make her angry and violent.  Both parents have previously admitted drinking alcohol knowing that this can fuel arguments.  Mother admits to using alcohol as a mechanism with stress.

5)	 Non-cooperation with child protection services

The parents have a distrustful and volatile relationship with social services.  They did not cooperate fully with the arrangements for monitoring and support of their care of the children under the supervision order. 
 
6)	Neglect

On attending the family home on 26th January 2013, the police found the home environment to be extremely untidy with brandy and flour on the floor as a result of the incident.

41	In my judgment of 17th December 2013, I went on to make the following findings:

i)	The societal, medical and emotional pressures on the parents have been enormous.

ii)	Mrs. CL has remained abstinent from alcohol from February 2013.

iii)	Mrs. CL engaged with services in an attempt to address her maladaptive use of alcohol.

iv)	There is no evidence that mother is not currently compliant with the psychiatric services and, in particular, with regard to her medication.
v)	She has a developing insight into difficulties within the relationship.

vi)	She has an enduring psychiatric condition in the form of paranoid schizophrenia.

vii)	Mr. AL has continued to have difficult and challenging relationships with professionals within these proceedings as he  did during the currency of the earlier Supervision Order. 

viii)	Mr. AL uses complaints against professionals as a defence mechanism.

ix)	Mr. AL has no or limited insight as to the impact of domestic conflict on mother’s mental health.

x)	Mr. AL  failed to engage in any meaningful work with Mr. Clark or the Moorfield Centre around the underlying cause of marital conflict.

xi)	Mr. AL is challenged by the competing vulnerability of his wife and his children, and has repeatedly failed to prioritise the children’s emotional and physical safety as demonstrated  in January 2013.

xii)	During Mrs. CL’s psychiatric episodes, the children have been exposed to episodes of explosive violence.

xiii)	Mrs. RL’s principal concern is for her son and that she did not report events of July 2010 to social services.  In consequence, the court must be extremely cautious about her ability to work transparently with the agencies.

42	ME, ML and MCL are all very much loved by their parents.  Mrs. CL and Mr. AL have continued to attend contact regularly since this matter was last in court.

43	ME, ML and MCL have been the subject of proceedings for most of their lives.  ME has been in care three times, MCL and ML for almost the whole of their lives.  A decision must be made for the children without further delay.

44	Counsel for mother and father each invite the court to make an “in principle” decision that the children should be returned to the parent’s care, but for the proceedings to be adjourned to enable the relevant authorities to be invited to prepare a support package.  Such submissions tacitly acknowledge that the court has as much evidence as is necessary as to the support the family can offer.  

45	No application for an adjournment is made to enable any further enquiries to be pursued within the family.  Indeed, the court would be bound to reject such an application in any event, since the court first invited the parents to provide names of family members who could support/be assessed back in May 2013.

46	Mr. AL and Mrs. CL are in the very early stages of  establishing/renewing  relationships with the paternal family.  Mr. AL has not seen Mrs. PG for 22 years.  He last had contact with other significant members of the family, with whom he hopes to meet on 9th March, some 38 years ago.  

47	The course of his relationships with family members if renewed, and the strengths of the individuals and the robustness of the relationships cannot begin to be assessed within the children’s timescales.  I must therefore focus on what is currently available to the family.

48	The Court of Appeal has given guidance to the family court in a series of recent authorities which confirm the need for the court to ensure that a proper and effective evaluation is undertaken of all the realistic options at the welfare hearing.  

Recent case law

49	In Re W [2013] EWCA Civ.1227, Ryder LJ said at para.76:

“The welfare evaluation and the question of what, if any, orders are to be made, engages Article 8 of the Convention and the proportionality of that intervention must be justified.  One cannot have a clearer description of the imperative than that contained in the Supreme Court’s judgments in the matter of Re B (A Child) [2013] UKSC 33.  A court cannot apply the yardstick of proportionality in its consideration of what is necessary without having evidence about the options to which it can apply a welfare evaluation.  As McFarlane LJ said in Re G at [54]:

‘What is required is a balancing exercise in which each option is evaluated to the degree of detail necessary to analyse and weigh its own internal positives and negatives and each option is then compared, side by side, against the competing option or options.’”

50	This authority served to remind the court that it should adopt the least interventionist approach consistent with the child’s welfare.

In Re BS (Children) EWCA Civ.1146, the Court of Appeal said this;
“22. The language used in Re B is striking.  Different words and phrases are used, but the message is clear.  Orders contemplating non-consensual adoption – care orders with a plan for adoption, placement orders and adoption orders – are ‘a very extreme thing, a last resort’, only to be made where ‘nothing else will do’, where ‘no other course [is] possible in [the child’s] interests’, they are ‘the most extreme option’, a ‘last resort – when all else fails’, to be made ‘only in exceptional circumstances and where motivated by overriding requirements pertaining to the child’s welfare, in short, where nothing else will do’. See Re B paras.74, 76, 77, 82, 104, 130, 135, 145, 198, 215.

23. Behind all this there lies the well-established principle, derived from s.1(5) of the 1989 Act, read in conjunction with s.1(3)(g), and now similarly embodied in s.1(6) of the 2002 Act, that the court should adopt the ‘least interventionist’ approach.  As Hale LJ (as she then was) said in Re O (Care or Supervision Order) [1996] 2 FLR 755, 760:

‘The court should begin with a preference for the least interventionist rather than the more interventionist approach.  This should be considered to be in the better interests of the children… unless there are cogent reasons to the contrary.’

25. Implicit in all this are three important points emphasised by Lord Neuberger in Re B.

26. First (Re B, paras.77, 104), although the child’s interest in an adoption case are paramount, the court must never lose sight of the fact that those interests include being brought up by the natural family, ideally by the natural parents, or at least one of them, unless the overriding requirements of the child’s welfare make that not possible.”

51	The threshold having been agreed in this case, the court must now look at the options for the future of these three small children.  In order to complete that evaluation in the context of applications for both care orders and placement orders, the court must consider the provisions of the Children Act s.1 and s.1 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002.

52	Under s.1 of the Children Act, the welfare of each child is paramount in the court’s consideration of the upbringing of that child.  In this case, the parts of s.1(3) of the welfare checklist which I consider to have particular relevance  for the three children are:

Section 1 The Children Act

(a)	The ascertainable wishes and feelings of the children concerned (considered in the light of his age and understanding)

53	The children are all very young and therefore unable to provide an articulate expression of their wishes, but it is apparent that the children, by and large, enjoy seeing their parents.  The children have been in care for such a long time that it has had an impact on the relationship between the boys and ME.  ME, whilst settled, has been noted to be shut down.  This has impacted on her relationship with the two boys from whom she appears detached.  ML and MCL have a distant relationship but one which is capable of improvement with effective social work.

(b)	His physical, emotional and educational needs

54	ML and MCL are meeting their developmental milestones but ME is delayed in her speech and social interaction.  She presents as a neglected child in that she is closed down and has difficulty in establishing attachments.  The level of her difficulty will require consistent monitoring and professional input.  Her primary need is for stability and security with carers who are physically and emotionally available to her.  The children’s guardian considers that she should ideally be parented as the youngest in a placement or as an only child.  

(c)	The likely effect on him of any change in his circumstances 

55	Any change of circumstances will be unsettling.  The boys have a distant relationship and work will need to be done to repair that.  Both boys appear to be meeting their developmental milestones.  ME’s exposure to her early life in her mother’s sole care at a time when her mother was vulnerable both physically and emotionally, coupled with the repeated moves into care, has left her emotionally fragile.  

56	Whilst ME may appear to cope with change on a superficial basis, it is likely that any further changes in the arrangements for her care are likely to have a significant impact on her psychological development.  She needs security, stability and consistency.  She is unlikely to manage multiple changes in care arrangements.  She is furthermore likely to require ongoing support from CAMHS. 

(d)	 His age, sex, background and any characteristics of his which the court considers relevant

57	ME is Nigerian and Malawian.  She has a unique heritage within the family.  Her ongoing developmental delay will need to be supported through professional input and enhanced primary care.  ML and MCL are both Malawian/white British.  Their cultural and developmental needs coupled with their ages suggest that it would be difficult for there to be an exact cultural match outside of the family.  

(e)	 Any harm which he has suffered or is at risk of suffering

58	ME continues to demonstrate features of emotional neglect which are likely to continue throughout her life, but may be ameliorated by stability and security and ongoing professional input.  

(f)	How capable each of his parents, and any other parent in relation to whom the court considers the question to be relevant, is of meeting his needs

59	Mrs. CL has an enduring mental illness which is currently managed.  Historically, she has experienced psychotic episodes when non-compliant with medication.  Dr. Ratnum, when reporting in April 2013, said her mental health will impact on her day to day functioning when she experiences a relapse as:

a)	At times when she is experiencing psychotic thoughts, her ability to meet the needs of the children would be impacted due to preoccupation with her symptoms;

b)	If depressed, she would be remote;

c)	If intoxicated, the children will be exposed to explosive situations;

d)	She needs to remain compliant with her medication for the foreseeable future;

e)	Mrs. CL understood her diagnosis and was able to identify symptoms;

f)	Mrs. CL had a history of non-compliance but this was linked to her mental health.

60	Thus, it is probable that irrespective of mother’s maladaptive use of alcohol, there will be periods when she is unwell.  Mr.  AL does not act as a protective factor as he has historically been unable to prioritise the needs of the children over the needs of their mother.  Very sadly, his current acknowledgement of previous failings and his commitment to work differently in the future comes at a time when that wish to change falls outside of the children’s timescales.

61	The local authority and the children’s guardian have made the enquiries I directed to see whether other resources can be put in place to ensure the children can be safeguarded in the care of their parents.  Mrs. RL’s offer to move in at 73 is a time-limited support.  Mrs. RL loves her son, he is her priority.  She has struggled to prioritise the children as was evident when she did not share her account of the events of July 2010 during the viability assessment.

62	Mrs. RL is developing a relationship with her daughter-in-law but her presence in a family home with the parents and the children, cannot and does not offer the fundamental protection required to address the problems within the parental relationship.  Mrs. RL is no longer young.  She offers two years of her time and that takes the children only a little further into their childhood.

63	The distant support offered by Mrs. PG and Ms. JD to the parental grandmother is not enough to address the risk factors within the family even if external agencies are brought in, because, very sadly, the court cannot be confident of the level of the parents’ engagement in light of the events of the last three years.

64	Turning now to the relevant provisions of the Adoption and Children Act, it is significant that the court is required to consider the child’s welfare throughout their life, rather than just to the end of their minority.  The relevant sections of the checklist under s.1(4) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 are as follows:

Sections (a), (b), (d) and (e) have been addressed by me above but the balance of the checklist that requires further examination is as follows:

(c) The likely effect on the child (throughout his life) of having ceased to be a member of the original family and become and adopted person

65	The consequences for the three children will be very significant if they cease to be members of the family.  The children each have a unique heritage which is significant for their personal identity, social and educational development.  The court is bound to recognise that the children’s family makeup is unlikely to be replicated outside the birth family.  For ME, this is likely to be a particular challenge in view of her current presentation.  

66	The local authority’s analysis makes clear that whilst the local authority will look for a placement for all three children on an adoptive basis, it is unlikely to be successful.  I note the children’s guardian’s view as to ME requiring a separate placement, and on the local authority’s case that that is the likely outcome if the efforts to find a placement for all three children together proves unsuccessful.

67	Thus, my consideration of the placement options for the children is made  on the basis that it is unlikely all three children will be placed together if they are  not returned to the family.

(f) the relationship which the child has with relatives, and with any other person in relation to whom the court or agency considers the relationship to be relevant, including:-

(i) the likelihood of any such relationship continuing and the value to the child of its doing so.

68	The children have a close relationship with their mother and father.  They have not had the opportunity of establishing a meaningful relationship with their grandmother as their opportunities to meet her have been limited.  

(ii) the ability and willingness of any of the child’s relatives, or any such person, to provide the child with a secure environment in which the child can develop, and otherwise to meet the children’s needs. 

69	There is no one else who offers themselves as carers within the family.

(5) In placing the child for adoption, the adoption agency must give due consideration to the child’s religious persuasion, racial origin and cultural and linguistic background.

70	The children have important dual heritage.  They have not been in the care of their mother and father for long enough to establish an understanding of the underlying cultural values of those cultures, and it is important that they are given the opportunity to gain that understanding.

71	Thus, looking at the placement options through the prism of the welfare checklists of the Children Act and the Adoption and Children Act, I consider the realistic placement options are:

Placement with mother and father supported by Mrs. RL, Mrs. PG and Mrs. JD with a support package from Derbyshire

72	A family placement is the placement of choice provided it is consistent with the children’s welfare.  There is no doubt the children are well loved by both mother and father, and that they are very keen to care for them.  It is likely that this is the only placement where the children could all be together and where the children’s cultural needs will be met. The paternal grandmother wishes to be involved in the children’s lives. The children have half siblings through the Fathers first marriage. It has not been possible for those relationships to flourish because of the strained relationships within the Fathers first family and the fact the children have been in care for most of their lives. 
73	Within these proceedings the children have been out of the family for 14 months .  The children have lived most of their lives in care.  ME is going to need high quality consistent care in view of her delay and emotional vulnerability.  The disconnect between her and her siblings and the friction between the boys will need external support.  

74	The re-introduction of the three children to a household where the parents have been unable to address  underlying difficulties within their relationship increases  the risk of  parental conflict, and the consequential risk to Mrs. CL’s mental health.

75	Mr. AL has been unable to demonstrate that he can prioritise the needs of the children and to act protectively.  The support proposed by Mrs. RL,  and the agencies is time-limited, untested and does not address the fundamental issue as to the father’s lack of insight and his persistent failure to prioritise the children’s needs. The children need plans to be made for their future lives. They cannot wait any longer for their parents to demonstrate change when they have been unable to do in the 3 years since May 2011.

	Adoption 

76	It has been clear to me from the outset of this final hearing that the local authority’s plan is likely to result in the separation of the children.  The local authority has only been able to place one sibling group  of three in the last five years. Thus, when the children’s heritage, their ages and the delay and detachment noted in ME, is taken into account, I consider it highly unlikely that the local authority will find a cultural match for all three of the children together.  The court directed the local authority to pursue its further enquiries of support options for the family to ensure all possibilities had been properly examined.

77	Adoptions do not always succeed.  There is conflicting evidence as to the success rate of adoption but the recent BAAF report of Saunders and Selwyn  of 2011 suggests that siblings groups in placements lasting more than 12 months have an enhanced chance of success.  

78	All three of the children with whom I am concerned need an end to the uncertainty in the arrangements for their care.  They need to know who their primary care givers will be, both now and into the future.  The local authority do not consider long term foster as an option for the children in view of their ages.  Indeed, that is not an option that has been pushed by either mother or father.  

79	Long term fostering may or may not enable the children to be placed together.  However, the difficulties the local authority have had in placing the children together on a short term basis would suggest that placing the three children together on a long term basis will be equally challenging and in my view unlikely. 

80	The question of the relative merits of adoption and long term fostering have been examined most recently in the case of Re V (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ.913.  The Court of Appeal held that fostering could not be equated with the security of adoption.  The material differences between the two types of placement were articulated and placement orders were made on appeal.  

81	The court in Re V reiterated the need for the court to ensure that it makes the least interventionist order required to meet the children’s welfare needs.  The court went on to identify material differences between fostering and adoption whilst making clear that each case should be considered on its facts.

82	The principal differences noted were:-

a)	Adoption ensures a child is a permanent part of the adoptive family to which he or she will belong.  To the child it is likely they will feel different to when they are fostered.  The commitment of the adoptive family is of a different nature to that of a local authority foster carer whose circumstances may change however devoted he or she is, and who is free to determine the caring arrangements.  ME is a child who requires certainty and security in the care arrangements for the whole of her life.  The Guardians analysis suggests she will require significant remedial work supported by committed and supported lifetime carers. The boys relationship needs to be nurtured and supported in a robust and committed forever family.

b)	Parents may apply for a discharge of a care order with a view to getting the child back to live with them, whilst an adoption order is made for ever. These three children have been in and our of care throughout their lives. It is essential that the uncertainty in the arrangements for their care is brought to an end.

c)	Contact in the context of adoption is different to that in the context of a fostering arrangement.  The local authority is obliged to allow contact in the context of long term fostering .  The contact position can be regulated by alternative orders, but the situation is still in marked contrast to that of an adoptive child.  

Open adoptions are unusual.  There are open adoptions where parents see the child but it would be fair to say that generally, contact only happens in the context of an adoption where there is full agreement.  Once the adoptive order has been made, the natural parents normally need leave before they can apply for contact.

d)	The local authority no longer has a role in the life of an adoptive child which means the child escapes from the ongoing administrative burden of reviews, meetings and consultations. ME, ML and MCL are still very young. It would not be appropriate for these three children to be burdened with the administrative demands of a fostering arrangement throughout the rest of their minority when weighed against the limited benefits of long term fostering for them.

83	Adoption offers permanency but at the cost of an ongoing connection with the birth family, and whereas here the siblings are likely to be separated, there is a further disconnect between the child and their family of origin.

84	I remind myself that the parents’ and the children’s Article 8 rights are engaged and that the court can only interfere with the family’s right to respect for private and family life if it is proportionate to do so.  The court must make the least interventionist order consistent with the children’s welfare needs.

85	I have considered this case very carefully.  I have weighed in the balance the inherent positives and negatives of a supported placement within the family and  adoption as set out above.   I am very alive to the   likelihood of the children being separated. Very sadly, I am compelled to find that the only arrangement for the children which is consistent with their welfare needs is adoption. The local authority supported by the children’s guardian invite the court to endorse a programme of reduced contact with contact reduced to letter box contact twice a year. 
86	 The challenge of finding adoptive placements for the children leads me to the view that the court should not fetter or anticipate the prospective adopter’s attitude to face to face contact. To do so would be inappropriate as it may result in further reducing the pool of carers who would make themselves available for all or some of the children. As a consequence I approve their plan for the reduction of contact.

87	Thus, I make care orders to the London Borough of Enfield in respect of all three children on the basis of their plan to seek an adoptive placement for the three children together. In the event that the local authority cannot find a suitable placement for the children together the local authority will go on to seek a placement for ME where she is the only or youngest child and the two boys will be placed together. In the event the children have to be placed in separate placements the local authority will seek to secure regular sibling contact. 

88	I further go on to make placement orders dispensing with the consent of each parent on the basis that the children’s welfare requires me to dispense with their consent in order for the plan for permanence to be implemented. I have considered s52 of the Adoption and Children Act in reaching this decision and conclude that such  orders are necessary for and consistent with the children’s welfare, not simply through their minority but throughout the whole of their lives.  

__________