B e f o r e :
H.H. Judge Marson
____________________
Between:
|
THE CITY OF DONCASTER COUNCIL
|
Applicant
|
|
- and -
|
|
|
(1) THE MOTHER (2) THE FATHER (3) THE CHILDREN
|
Respondents
|
____________________
Ms J. Richardson (instructed by the City of Doncaster Council) for the Applicant
Mr L. Dodgson (instructed by Sills & Betteridge Solicitors) for the First Respondent Mother
Ms P. Yellott (instructed by GWB Harthills Solicitors) for the Second Respondent Father
Ms H. Alder (instructed by the children's guardian Sharon Jones), for the children
Hearing dates: 2nd and 4th June 2025
Judgment handed down on the 4th June 2025
____________________
HTML VERSION OF APPROVED JUDGMENT
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
This judgment was handed down remotely at 2pm on the 4th June 2025 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by subsequent release to the National Archives
H.H. Judge Marson:
- The original version of this judgment included the names of the children, parents, other friends and family members and all professionals involved with the family, and specific dates were identified. This published version has been altered to preserve the privacy and anonymity of the family concerned.
- The court is concerned with the welfare of two children, Lucy, a girl born in 2023 who is 18 months old, and her younger sister, Annie aged 6 months. (These are not their real names). The children have been represented at this hearing by Ms Alder who in turn takes her instructions from the Children's Guardian, Ms Sharon Jones.
- The children's parents are [the mother, name redacted] who is represented by counsel, Mr Dodgson, and any references to 'the mother' in this judgment refer to [her]. The children's father is [name redacted] who is represented by counsel, Ms Yellott and similarly, any references in this judgment to 'the father' refer to [him]. He shares parental responsibility for both children by virtue of being named as their father on their birth certificates.
- The local authority in this case is the City of Doncaster Council and it is represented in these proceedings by counsel, Ms Richardson. I may refer to it hereafter as 'the local authority'.
- At this composite final hearing the local authority seeks care and placement orders in respect of both children with a care plan of adoption outside of their birth family.
- If care orders and placement orders are made it is proposed the children will be placed together in an adoptive placement. If placement orders are made, their contact with their parents will gradually reduce from its existing frequency to once a month until such time as an adoptive placement is identified. Once an adoptive placement is found, a farewell contact will be arranged for the purposes of the children's life story books. Post-placement it is proposed the children will maintain a relationship with their birth parents via contact in the format of two-way indirect contact consisting of drawings, photographs and if appropriate, a video or voice recording. In the longer term it is proposed reconsideration should be given to limited direct contact if the adopters feel able to support this.
- At this final hearing the parents do not agree with the local authority's applications and they seek the immediate return of both children to their care. If the children are to be placed for adoption the parents seek an order for contact pursuant to section 26 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002.
- The Children's Guardian supports the local authority's applications and the proposed plan for permanency for Lucy and Annie by way of adoption. Ms Jones supports the proposed contact arrangements but does not support the making of any orders pursuant to section 26 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 and does not consider this would be in the children's best interests.
- It has not been necessary to hear any oral evidence as all parties invited the court to determine this matter by way of oral submissions. The parents do not seek to challenge any of the written evidence filed, they simply seek to persuade the court to find a different conclusion to the one professionals have reached.
- I can confirm I have now read and considered all of the written evidence and reports filed in these proceedings. I have watched the various videos disclosed by the South Yorkshire Police arising out of the index incident which precipitated these proceedings and I have listened carefully to the oral submissions made in court. Although this judgment is being written in sections, consideration of the evidence and the realistic options for both children have been undertaken holistically for each individual child.
- In accordance with guidance from the Court of Appeal, I have addressed only those issues which I consider are relevant, proportionate and necessary to determine the applications before the court.
- Where care and placement orders are applied for together, the task for the court is to conduct a holistic evaluation of the relevant child's welfare throughout their life, and to determine whether their welfare requires them to be made the subject of a final care order and placement order which would have the effect of removing them permanently from their birth family, or whether there is a more proportionate and realistic option namely, in this case, placing Lucy and/or Annie in the care of their parents either immediately or within a timescale which is meaningful for their welfare.
THE LAW
- I have been helpfully assisted by the advocates as to the law I must apply and I have directed myself in accordance with it and with the principles in the following cases.
- In describing the background and in the narrative parts of this judgment, I may address matters upon which the parties do not explicitly agree. I may give my findings on these disputed matters as they arise and when doing so it is in the context of having considered the evidence as a whole even though the judgment is being written in sections. When making findings I have applied the following principles derived from the judgment of Baker J (as he then was) in the case of A Local Authority v (1) A Mother (2) A Father (3) L & M (Children by their Children's Guardian) [2013] EWHC 1569 (Fam):-
i) The burden of proving an allegation lies with the party who is making it, in this case that is the local authority;
ii) The standard to which it must prove it is the usual civil standard namely the balance of probabilities.
iii) Findings must be based on evidence and on inferences which can be properly drawn from the evidence but cannot be based on mere suspicion or speculation.
iv) Evidence cannot be evaluated and assessed in separate compartments. A Judge in these cases must have regard to the relevance of each piece of evidence to other evidence and exercise an overview of the totality of the evidence in order to come to a conclusion whether the case put forward by the local authority has been made out to the appropriate standard of proof.
v) Whilst appropriate attention must be paid to the opinion of medical experts, those opinions need to be considered in the context of all the other evidence. It is important to remember that the roles of the court and the expert are distinct and it is the court that is in the position to weigh up the expert evidence against its findings on the other evidence. It is the judge who makes the final decision.
vi) In assessing the expert evidence……. the court must be careful to ensure that each expert keeps within the bounds of their own expertise and defers, where appropriate, to the expertise of others.
vii) The evidence of the parents and any other carers is of the utmost importance. It is essential that the court forms a clear assessment of their credibility and reliability.
viii) It is common for witnesses in these cases to tell lies in the course of the investigation and the hearing. The court must be careful to bear in mind that a witness may lie for many reasons, such as shame, misplaced loyalty, panic, fear and distress, and the fact that a witness has lied about some matters does not mean that he or she has lied about everything (see R v Lucas [1981] QB 720)
ix) As observed by Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss P in an earlier case:
• The judge in care proceedings must never forget that today's medical certainty may be discarded by the next generation of experts or that scientific research would throw a light into corners that are at present dark".
And the importance of the court taking into account, to the extent that it is appropriate in any case, the possibility of the unknown cause.
- In order to make a care or supervision order the local authority must prove that the situation justifies the intervention of the State. It achieves this by establishing the statutory threshold set out in section 31 of the Children Act 1989 is crossed. In this case the issue of whether the section 31 threshold criteria are satisfied was agreed by the parents on the first morning of this final hearing. The approved schedule of facts is now set out at the end of this judgment and it reflects the background set out below.
THE WELFARE EVALUATION
- Once the statutory threshold for intervention is crossed, the court must go on to apply well-established legal principles and decide what order, if any, the court should make in order to safeguard each child's welfare. In doing so, I must bear in mind any Article 8 rights they have with their birth family for the right to respect for family life. Any interference with the rights of parents and a child under Article 8 must be necessary and proportionate. I also bear in mind that adoption is an option of last resort requiring a high degree of justification, it should be made only in exceptional circumstances where nothing else will do to meet the welfare of the child in question.
- The court must undertake a global, holistic evaluation and analysis of each child's welfare and keep in mind their welfare is my paramount consideration. Under section 1(2) of the Children Act 1989 any delay in making decisions concerning any child's future is likely to prejudice their welfare. Section 1(3) provides a checklist of factors to be taken into account when determining where their welfare lies and what order should be made. In addition, section 1(3)(g) of the 1989 Act requires this court to have regard to the range of orders available.
- On the applications for Placement Orders, the court applies section 1 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 (ACA 2002). On such an application, my paramount consideration is Lucy's and Annie's welfare throughout their life. Once again, I take into account the fact that delay in coming to a decision is likely to prejudice their welfare, and there is a checklist of factors to be taken into account in assessing their welfare set out in section 1(4) of the 2002 Act.
- Under section 21(3) ACA 2002 a court may not make a placement order unless satisfied either that each parent with parental responsibility has consented to their child being placed for adoption or that his or her consent should be dispensed with. In this case both parents share parental responsibility for Lucy and Annie and they have not consented to the making of a placement order. Under section 52(1)(b) the court may dispense with the parents' consent if the welfare of the children requires their consent to be dispensed with.
- I have reminded myself of the 'first principles' of adoption as enunciated by the former President, Sir James Munby in Re B-S [2013] EWCA Civ 1146 :
21. Just how stringent and demanding has been spelt out very recently by the Supreme Court in in re B (A Child) (Care Proceedings: Threshold Criteria) [2013] UKSC 33, [2013] 1 WLR 1911. The significance of Re B was rightly emphasised in two judgments of this court handed down on 30 July 2013: Re P (A Child) [2013] EWCA Civ 963, para 102 (Black LJ), and Re G (A Child) [2013] EWCA Civ 965, paras 29-31 (McFarlane LJ). As Black LJ put it in Re P, Re B is a forceful reminder of just what is required.
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 J, 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 less 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."
24. Linked with this is the vitally important point made by Wall LJ in Re P (Placement Orders: Parental Consent) [2008] EWCA Civ 535, [2008] 2 FLR 625, para 126:
"Section 52(1) is concerned with adoption – the making of either a placement order or an adoption order – and what therefore has to be shown is that the child's welfare 'requires' adoption as opposed to something short of adoption. A child's circumstances may 'require' statutory intervention, perhaps may even 'require' the indefinite or long-term removal of the child from the family and his or her placement with strangers, but that is not to say that the same circumstances will necessarily 'require' that the child be adopted. They may or they may not. The question, at the end of the day, is whether what is 'required' is adoption."
- In Re F (A Child) (Placement Order: Proportionality) [2018] EWCA Civ 2761 Jackson LJ set outs the following matters to which I must have regard when considering the type of harm which might arise to the children and the likelihood of it arising, in particular:
a. the consequences: what would be the likely severity of the harm to the child if it did come to pass;
b. Risk reduction/mitigation: would the chances of harm happening be reduced or mitigated by the support services that are or could be made available? My assessment of any parent's ability to discharge their responsibilities towards their child/ren must take into account the assistance and support which the authorities would or could offer.
c. The comparative evaluation: in light of the above, how do the welfare advantages and disadvantages of the child growing up with their parents compare with those of adoption?
d. Proportionality: ultimately, is adoption necessary and proportionate in this case?
- I have also been guided by the judgment of Jackson LJ in the case of Re T (Children: Risk Assessment)[2025] EWCA Civ 93 which refers to the above case of re F and says at paragraph [31] "The risk of harm, important as it is, is one of a number of factors in the welfare checklist and it has to be carefully assessed, particularly where it may be decisive". The judgment helpfully sets out at paragraph [33] the questions which the court needs to address:
1. What type of harm has arisen and might arise?
2. How likely is it to arise?
3. What would be the consequences for the child if it did?
4. To what extent might the risks be reduced or managed?
5. What other welfare considerations have to be taken into account?
6. In consequence, which of the realistic plans best promotes the child's welfare?
7. If the preferred plan involves interference with the Article 8 rights of the child or of others, is that necessary and proportionate?
THE BACKGROUND
- The following facts are agreed or unopposed except where stated otherwise.
- Lucy and Annie are the only children of these two parents. The mother was relatively young when Lucy was born, only 19 years old, the father was 26. The father experienced a disrupted childhood with changes in his care arrangements. He recalled seeing violence between his parents which led to his parents' separation, and he continued to live with his mother until his mother 'kicked him out'. The father recalled an argument when he was 16 years old when he threw a knife at his mother because she was 'being horrible' to him. The father said he did not want the knife to hit his mother, he was just angry with her. This led to the father returning to live with his own father for a while before moving back to live with his mother when that arrangement didn't work out. During this period he was 'smoking weed' and carrying a knife for his own protection. He admitted to hitting his own mother whilst under the influence of cannabis when they disagreed. He has convictions for possessing a knife/sharp pointed article in a public place in 2019 as well as convictions for possessing cannabis in 2017 and 2021, and for three offences of battery. The father does not currently have any positive or supportive relationships with his family members.
- The mother was the subject of a child protection plan until she was 18, and at the time the proceedings for Lucy were issued the mother's younger siblings remained the subject of child protection plans. The concerns within the mother's family home related to physical and emotional harm. When this was explored further with her during her parenting assessment she shared little information about her childhood stating she could not remember. Whilst she described spending time with her wider family she also stated they no longer spoke to each other and she did not know why, other than they had all gone 'insane'. The mother described being expelled from school and moving into supported accommodation where she met the father who has been her only significant relationship.
- The incident which precipitated the involvement of this local authority with the family arose in the early hours of the 5th March 2024 when a member of the public made a 999 call to the South Yorkshire Police. The caller informed the Police she had received a video message from her friend 'AS' who was intoxicated with a baby in a room in a Travelodge. The caller was concerned as they knew 'AS' did not have any children. This video message is in the court bundle and within it, 'AS' presents as under the influence of substances but it is not possible to say whether it is drugs or alcohol or both.
- Police officers arrived at the hotel at 6.20am whereupon 'AS' is heard in the body- cam video to deny having a baby in her care, but the Police witness her attempting to hide the baby who is underneath a pillow. It is their opinion 'AS' presented as being under the influence of alcohol. 'AS' told the Police the baby had been given to her by [the mother] and [the father] who she knew as two people staying in an adjacent room. She alleges to the Police she had taken the baby from them because the parents were intoxicated with alcohol and not fit to care for the child.
- The Police exercised their powers of protection and removed the baby, who was Lucy, into foster care. The parents and 'AS' were all arrested for child neglect. When social workers spoke to the mother at the Police station she was upset, stated she had done nothing wrong and blamed 'AS' for them being arrested. The mother informed the Police at the Police station on the 5 March 2024 that she 'drank two glasses of vodka last night'. The father asserted he does not usually drink and was not intoxicated but admitted to drinking 'one weak vodka last night'. I pause to note that the toxicology reports which have been filed in these proceedings indicate the parents were not intoxicated at this point in the chronology, and I proceed on the basis any deficits in their decision making cannot be attributed to intoxication.
- The father told the social workers they met 'AS' outside the hotel and began talking to her, the mother alleged she knew her from Rotherham but could not provide any details about how she knew her or when she had last been in contact with her. When 'AS' had offered to care for Lucy, the mother said she accepted the offer. 'AS' told the Police she did not know the parents at all prior to meeting them at the hotel and that the mother had told her not to tell anyone she had the baby. In the facts pleaded to satisfy the threshold criteria the parents accept they had insufficient knowledge about 'AS' to judge whether she was capable of caring for a young baby, and they failed to secure the return of Lucy from 'AS' when she refused to give her back to them even though they knew 'AS' had consumed alcohol in their presence earlier in the evening.
- The parents were residing at the hotel because they were presenting as homeless. They had been living in supported accommodation which they had to leave because it did not permit children to live there and the parents had embarked upon the planned pregnancy of Lucy with knowledge of this fact. It meant they experienced several changes of accommodation once Lucy was born, living at the home of the paternal grandmother, then to a property in Leeds before returning to Doncaster. Their property in Doncaster was not available which is how they came to be staying at the Travelodge. On the 6 March 2024 the parents were offered alternative temporary accommodation and were due to attend the housing office on the 7 March but they did not do so until the 11 March 2024. On the 8 April 2024 the mother reported she was sleeping rough and on the 11 April the parents were again provided with temporary accommodation at a Travelodge in Scunthorpe.
- Enquiries by social care revealed the family were known to North Lincolnshire County Council, who had conducted a positive pre-birth assessment which recommended 'child in need' planning and highlighted the parents' need for a high level of support due to their learning difficulties. Following Lucy's birth the family then moved to North Yorkshire where they received minimal support from Early Help services before moving again to Doncaster.
- The evidence available to the local authority at that time led it to issue care proceedings for Lucy on the 7 March 2024 upon the expiry of the police powers of protection, and an interim care order was made by DJ Roebuck on the same date with no opposition from the parents. The parents were also the subject of bail conditions which prevented unsupervised contact with a child. Lucy has remained in foster care since this date.
- At the time the proceedings for Lucy were issued the mother was pregnant with Annie. Proceedings in respect of Annie were issued on the 2 December 2024 following her birth and an interim care order made in respect of her by DJ Walker on the 3 December 2024 and the two sets of proceedings consolidated.
- Following the issuing of Lucy's proceedings the local authority became aware of a psychological assessment of the father which was commissioned following his conviction for being in possession of a bladed weapon in a public place. In that report, the author of which is Dr W., the father is assessed as being in the bottom 1% of the general population and Dr W. concludes the father has a learning disability. Dr W. also concludes the father's presentation indicates deficits in social communication that could be associated with autism (ASD), and that the father found it difficult to sustain concentration which Dr W. queried may mean the father also has ADHD. Dr W. concluded the father was in urgent need of professional support and intervention in many areas of his life, including how he copes with interpersonal relationships and managing his anger.
- This report, together with professional observations of the mother, led to both parents undertaking cognitive and capacity assessments during these proceedings in March 2024. The report of Dr Pantke regarding the mother concludes she has capacity to conduct these proceedings but her general cognitive ability is in the extremely low range which is usually associated with a mild learning disability. Participation directions to assist the mother's participation in this final hearing have been followed.
- The assessment and report of the father was conducted by Dr Laxton-Kane who concludes the father is in the extremely low range of intelligence with significant cognitive impairment. He has litigation capacity but is likely to experience difficulties with processing, understanding and retaining more complex information. Participation directions for the father have also been followed.
- The conclusions of these reports led the local authority to commission a specialist parenting assessment from an Independent Social Worker (ISW) called Debbie Pedder using the Parent Assess model. Her report is dated 24 June 2024 and the outcome of this assessment does not support Lucy being returned to the care of her parents. Ms Pedder concludes the parents did not provide an open and honest account of their own childhood experiences, and they have both been exposed to negative adult behaviour in their own formative years which in turn has had a negative impact on their ability to learn the skills required to provide appropriate care to Lucy. Ms Pedder states this is compounded further by the fact they both suffer from cognitive deficits. For the father, his autism and ADHD mean he already struggles to make sense of the world and he can become overwhelmed with his own life without the care of a young child.
- Ms Pedder highlights the adverse childhood experiences of the mother and how this has led the parents to have instability in their lives, she states: "It has been difficult to keep a thread of where they have been and when. Despite this level of instability in their lives, they made an active decision to have a baby and consequently brought their child into the chaos that had become their lives. The couple have sought to conceal the level of problems they have had with housing, mostly attributable to [the father's] anger problems, contributed to by [the mother's] behaviours, and they have exhausted support from members of their family and even friends. They have been thrown out by both maternal and paternal grandparents' homes following altercations and their respective behaviours have compromised their ability to secure stability with housing"…. "They both have the capacity to display aggressive and threatening behaviours, which presents both direct and indirect risks to any child".
- Ms Pedder did not consider the parents will be able to develop the level of necessary insight or skills required, or make the changes needed to care for Lucy. However, as it was going to be some months until the unborn Annie was born she recommended professionals give the parents an opportunity to demonstrate, through education, that their parenting could be improved within a timescale which was meaningful for both children. Ms Pedder set out the areas of work which the parents were likely to benefit from which included parenting work/courses; healthy relationships; understanding the risks from family members and the individuals they choose to associate with; budgeting; nutrition and diet; and maintaining a safe, stable and clean home. The father needed to address the interpersonal difficulties he experiences around others, and the impact his cannabis use is having on this which may be being used by him to cope with these difficulties. Ms Pedder was concerned about the parents' lack of support to care for a child and considers they needed to increase their social and emotional support system if they are to mange their own complex needs and the demands of caring for a child.
- The recommendations of Ms Pedder led to proceedings for Lucy being extended outside the 26 week court timescale whilst professionals sought to address and provide the education the parents needed.
- Ms Alison Lee is a Children's Centre Manager in a different local authority area and she was instructed by the City of Doncaster Council to undertake bespoke parenting training with the parents on a "1:1 basis over a period of 12 weeks with 4 hours of teachings per week and then produce a final teachings report". Her report is dated 21 November 2024.
- At the very outset, Ms Lee sought to explain the purpose of her training to the parents and although they confirmed they understood it was to 'boost their knowledge and skills in parenting as recommended by Debbie Pedder' both parents thought that most of the work was not necessary.
- Ms Lee delivered her training in accordance with the recommendations of Dr Pantke and Dr Laxton-Kane about how best to work with the parents, and she incorporated the use of pictorial aids, interactive puzzles and video clips. Practical sessions using props and toys were also utilised as well as providing the parents with regular breaks to maximise their levels of concentration.
- Midway through the parenting programme it became apparent that all areas of work may not be completed before the birth of Annie who was induced early on medical grounds, and the parents required more practical parenting support to embed their learning. Some sessions went ahead with the father on his own given the mother's health situation.
- In total, Ms Lee completed ten sessions with the parents together and the father undertook an additional four on his own. The unchallenged conclusions of Ms Lee's report are that the parents tried really hard and engaged in the work she asked of them. Ms Lee considers the father will struggle with abstract parenting, and anything unpredictable will cause him difficulty to adapt. He cannot 'forward think' of potential issues which is an important part of parenting and Ms Lee was unsure whether the mother could compensate for this deficit. Ms Lee concluded the mother finds it difficult to accept she is not always right or open to advice, she views these things as criticism. The couple required prompts to care for Lucy in family time and the mother was easily distracted by her mobile phone. Recently, the father had also acquired a mobile phone which had also served as a distraction to him and led to the mother phoning him during the period she was in hospital and he attended contact on his own which led to bickering between them. At these times the father's focus on Lucy was lost.
- By mid-November 2024 the local authority made a decision it would offer the parents an opportunity to be assessed in a residential assessment unit called [the RAU]. The proposed plan was for the parents and Annie to move into the unit for six weeks and assuming all progressed well, Lucy would join them from her foster placement for the second half of the assessment period between weeks six to twelve. Unfortunately, the assessment did not progress as had been hoped and Lucy only ever attended for family time at the unit.
- The residential assessment started with Annie following her birth on the 4 December 2024 and concluded on the 24 February 2025. The assessing social worker who is the author of the report is Ms X. The assessment began with 1:1 supervision by staff alongside CCTV monitoring and non-recording audio monitors. Apart from observations of bathtime which improved, the level of monitoring and supervision was never reduced and both parents and Annie required a high level of monitoring throughout due to a lack of progress and ongoing concerns about the parents' disruptive and volatile behaviour.
- The father in particular struggled with regulating his emotions and managing his interactions with staff and other residents. By 13 January 2025 the father was issued with a written warning about his behaviour but it was repeated and required a second written warning on the 20 January. On the 19 February 2025 the parents were informed of the negative outcome of the assessment with a recommendation for Annie to be placed in foster care. On the 24 February 2025, H.H. Judge Carr K.C. approved this change to the interim care plan for Annie and she has resided in foster care alongside Lucy since this date.
- During the period the parents were working in the community with Ms Lee, the father informed her he did not require any support from the Aspire substance misuse agency as he was no longer using drugs or consuming alcohol.
- Hair strand testing during the proceedings has revealed the father used cannabis between the end of December 2023 to the end of January 2024 however, there was no evidence he used cannabis between the end of January 2024 and the end of March 2024, and there is no evidence of excessive use of alcohol in that period. The father did not declare or admit to any drug use in that period. Further testing of the father between mid-June 2024 and mid-September 2024 shows he actively used cannabis during this period and he declared using it every day up to the 10 August 2024. The results also reveal his moderate use of alcohol. In the father's final statement he accepts using cannabis up to August 2024. I accept the outcome of these results, there is no reason or evidence on which to do otherwise.
- Hair strand testing of the mother between January - April 2024 concludes the results do not suggest she has consumed excessive amounts of alcohol however, as the EtPa level is elevated the consumption of alcohol cannot be excluded. Further testing of the mother between June – September 2024 suggests the mother has not consumed excessive amounts of alcohol in that period.
- In addition to the above assessments the local authority also agreed to assess any friends or family members who wished to be assessed to care for the children. The other persons who have been put forward and were either assessed by the local authority or declined to be assessed are as follows.
a. (the paternal grandmother);
b. (maternal step-grandfather);
c. (maternal grandmother);
d. (paternal aunt);
e. (paternal aunt);
f. (paternal uncle)
g. (family friend).
The Parents' Submissions
- The parents present as a couple and each adopts the submissions of the other. They oppose the plan of adoption and want the children to live with them. It is submitted they have tried their best over an extended period and in some areas have made improvements which should give the court optimism about the prognosis for further change. They accept what happened in the Travelodge in March 2024 was not good enough parenting and they accept their responsibility for the situation which arose and led to Lucy being removed from their care. They submit it will not be repeated.
- The parents highlight a number of positives which were evidenced in the residential assessment such as their ability to meet Annie's basic care needs, and they demonstrated improvement in their skills of changing, bathing and feeding a child. Notwithstanding their learning difficulties they demonstrated an ability to put into practice some of the teachings of Ms Lee with a reduction in the number of 'red flag' concerns as the assessment progressed. Their current home is clean and habitable for children to live in. Both parents have engaged in a lengthy assessment process and would be willing to continue their engagement with the local authority.
- In respect of the concerns presented by the father's behaviour, it is submitted he is now prescribed 160mg of sertraline a day and this has had a positive impact on his mental health, causing him to be calmer and more stable in his emotional regulation. He would like to engage with further work around anger management.
- The father submits his cannabis consumption has reduced and there is no evidence of either parent abusing alcohol. There is no dispute they are committed to their children and have demonstrated this by attending contact consistently.
- If the children are to be placed for adoption the parents wish to maintain a lifelong relationship with them through contact and by spending family time with them. They invite the court not to close the door on their relationship or potential future rehabilitation.
The Children's Guardian's Submissions
- On behalf of the children, Ms Jones adopts the submissions and evidence of the local authority in full, in her written report dated 21 April 2025 she gives her comprehensive reasons for doing so.
- Ms Jones highlights the conclusions of the assessment by Ms Pedder in 2024 and how the parents were aware of what needed to change. Notwithstanding this information the same concerns continued to exist throughout the residential assessment process. Ms Jones cannot identify any further support which could be put in place to remove or ameliorate these risks in any meaningful timescale for Lucy and Annie and accordingly, she concludes the only realistic care plan for them is with alternative carers.
- Having conducted her own holistic evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages of adoption balanced against the care likely to be provided by the parents, Ms Jones firmly recommends a care plan of adoption for both girls.
ANALYSIS and CONCLUSIONS
- The evidence in the written report of [the RAU] in March 2025 is entirely consistent with the evidence in the report of the ISW, Debbie Pedder dated June 2024, as well as with the observations of other professionals. I accept it for this reason and because the factual basis on which the conclusions have been reached have not been challenged. Those factual matters include the following:
- Ms X does not support the return of the children to the care of the parents. In her written report, Ms X states that "concerns became noted quite soon into the placement with regards to [the father's] inability to regulate his emotions, [the mother's] high need for attention from staff and other professionals, and the couple's struggle to manage their finances". Alongside formal sessions, the parents were supported with an action plan, a safety action plan, written guidance for [the father] on how to take care of himself better, a pictorial routine and one to one emotional and practical support. In addition to the two written warnings which were required, the unit put in place reflective work to support the parents to understand what behaviour the Family Centre could see from them and why it was a concern.
- Throughout the final review period between 23 January – 16 February 2025, the parents demonstrated an ability to meet Annie's basic care needs and could maintain the cleanliness of their bedroom, but they continued to struggle significantly with managing their behaviour; managing relationships; their health needs; their finances; and the father continued to struggle with regulating his emotions. Annie's needs had been placed second to the parents' behaviour as much focus had been taken by the parents in having their own needs met, their own need for attention from others, and managing their emotions and behaviour. The written reports states: "There were several occasions in this assessment where [Annie] could have been physically hurt from [the father] throwing items, from unsafe handling from [the mother], Annie had been exposed to swearing, an aggressive tone, tension, shouting and raised voices".
- The mother demonstrated she could make a simple meal but the parents did not evidence an ability to develop a routine around shopping or meal times and they ate a lot of takeaway food, as well as consuming a lot of energy and sugar filled drinks which had an impact on their behaviour and moods. The energy drinks precipitated the mother becoming increasingly excitable with loud behaviour which disturbed other residents and their children, and for the father he would report frequent headaches and take himself off to the bedroom to play games on his iPad or phone. Ms X considers this was likely to impact adversely on their ability to care for Annie and provide her with the emotional stability she required. When staff advised the parents to consume fewer drinks of this type, it had the opposite effect and fuelled the mother's motivation to drink copious amounts. Both parents were dismissive of the advice and no changes were made by either of them in this regard.
- The social worker provided the parents with targeted work about budgeting and how to live within their financial means but this was ineffective and at the point the assessment ended, their ability to manage their finances remained a significant concern. The parents could understand the importance of sticking to a budget and were in receipt of all the state benefits they were entitled to, but they would spend all their money as soon as it was paid and without any consideration of the importance of saving for emergencies. The father had no bank account or direct access to their joint monies and was content for the mother to organise their finances, and yet the mother did so impulsively and without planning and would mislead staff about their finances. One example is that the mother failed to pay for the electricity for their flat in the community which led to it being disconnected whilst they were at the unit.
- The inability of the parents to manage their finances is a longstanding one, with the father's own social worker, CG stating she had been involved with the couple in 2020 after a referral from their landlord. Ms X concludes the inability to manage their finances is likely to lead to ongoing instability in their living arrangements for themselves as well as their children.
- The parents were able to identify concerns around child safety from pictorial aids and what measures would need to be put in place to reduce risk but in practice, they were unable to supervise or distract Lucy consistently when she attended for family time. The parents were easily consumed by their own negative feelings and both Lucy and Annie could have had an accident had staff not been present to manage the situation. On other occasions, parental supervision was good enough when it was not overshadowed by the parents' needs taking priority.
- The parents needed a great deal of staff support and assistance to understand and meet their own health needs. They relied on staff to make telephone calls to medical professionals and to support the father in particular to attend GP appointments in respect of his epilepsy and migraines. On other occasions the father did attempt to meet his own health needs but in a disproportionate way, such as calling an ambulance for toothache when he had failed to follow up a call from the dental surgery. Within the 12 week assessment the father either had an ambulance sent to him at the residential unit or relayed his symptoms incorrectly to the call handler which precipitated one being sent on three occasions. He had no understanding about how to manage his symptoms more effectively and no support from the mother to do so who, as his paid carer, is expected to manage such situations on his behalf.
- The father was provided with formal educational work about his emotional and mental health and with day to day emotional support from staff. Notwithstanding this readily available support his mental health declined and he expressed thoughts to hurt himself, admitting these thoughts had also existed in the past. Throughout the assessment the mother did not demonstrate an ability to respond to the father at times of low mood, frustration or anger. The mother would tell him to go out for a walk and it was the unit staff who provided him with the nurturing and emotional support he required. The mother did not identify any concerns with the father's mental health or the impact of it upon his care of the children. The mother attributed the father's low mood to being at the Family Centre, but this is incorrect as the father accepts he has experienced thoughts to jump from a bridge before Annie was born and he told Dr W. in 2019 he had attempted to take his own life on three occasions.
- The father has a history of using cannabis and reported using it since the age of 12. During his residential assessment he denied using any cannabis since June 2024[1]. This is not consistent with the hair strand drug test results conducted during proceedings or his admission in his final statement and I am persuaded he is not being consistently open and honest about his cannabis use. He declined the support of the Human Kind drug service which visits the Family Centre on a weekly basis to carry out work about relapse prevention citing there was no need for him to engage in such work when clearly there is if he has been using it intermittently for the past 15 years.
- During the assessment period, [the father] was allocated a social worker in his own right, and both parents were noted to have significant needs across many areas which needed to be addressed before they could be considered to be responsible and safe parents. They do not have a supportive and safe informal support network to help them care of the children or to support them emotionally when difficulties arise. The mother was in contact with the maternal grandmother, sometimes daily, but as the maternal grandmother has now had the mother's younger siblings removed from her care she was not deemed to be suitable to care for Lucy or Annie Both parents described a volatile and toxic relationship with the maternal grandmother's partner, and the father inappropriately spoke about hurting him when he left the residential assessment.
- In her conclusions, Ms X states one of the most consistent and significant concerns in this family is the likelihood of the parents instigating hostility and conflict with other people such that, if outside the protected environment of the Family Centre, would place the children at risk of significant harm as well as evidencing their lack of positive role modelling to the children. In theory, the parents had a good enough understanding about the importance of boundaries in their everyday lives but in practice, they: "certainly did not understand boundaries, appropriate social interactions and relations, reading social cues and as a result, their behaviour led to a cycle of conflict and upset with other people". The presence of Annie at such times did not act as any deterrent for the parents exhibiting such behaviour.
- When I compare the conclusions of Ms Pedder's assessment in June 2024 with the ongoing concerns observed throughout the residential assessment, I am persuaded there has been no change in the intervening 7 months of the nature or degree required to be able to conclude these parents could care for Lucy and Annie safely throughout their childhood.
- I have considered the bespoke training provided by Ms Lee and funded by the local authority, as well as the additional support and training provided by [the RAU] but sadly, this has still not been sufficient for the parents to make the changes they need to make. When I consider the parents' ability to meet the needs of their children as part of the welfare checklist, I have been persuaded they do not currently have the ability to meet their children's holistic welfare needs safely and Lucy and Annie are likely to be placed at ongoing risk of significant harm from the care their parents will provide them with.
- Lucy and Annie are too young to express any wishes and feelings, but if they were capable of expression they are likely to want to be loved, nurtured and cared for safely until they are of an age when they can protect themselves. If they could be safe and well cared for within their birth family, this is where they would most likely prefer to be.
- Like all children, Lucy and Annie require a safe, nurturing, loving home in which to grow up in and to fulfil their emotional, physical, psychological and educational potential. They need to be protected from experiencing or witnessing harm and to be able to rely unquestioningly upon their parents or carers for their safety. I have no doubt these parents would provide them with much love and strive to do their very best to meet the children's global needs, but the evidence persuades me they would not be able to do this consistently and there are likely to be many occasions when the children's welfare is neglected or harmed as the parents' prioritise their own needs over and above the children's.
- Lucy and Annie are White British female children and happily, they both enjoy good health and have no additional needs over and above any other child of their age. Emotionally and psychologically, the children need consistency of care with permanent carers to whom they may form secure attachments which will promote their ability to have long lasting relationships throughout their lives. It would not be consistent with promoting their welfare to have their emotional and psychological attachments repeatedly disrupted which is more likely to cause them confusion and to have feelings of distress and insecurity. If the children are returned to the care of their parents before the parents have made sufficient changes in their parenting, there is a high likelihood the children will be removed a second time and placed once again into foster care precipitating the very disruption which must be avoided.
- The Child Permanence Report (CPR) for Lucy describes her as happy, smiley, curious child, with beautiful light brown hair, blue eyes and a pale skin tone. Her personality is cheeky, she is meeting all of her developmental milestones and her foster carers state she is a lovely child to care for. The CPR for Annie also describes her as a happy and content child who is meeting her developmental milestones. Neither report identifies any significant physical, educational, social or health needs which would prevent an adoptive family being found for them. I accept the parents have demonstrated an ability to meet the basic care needs for their children in contact and, in respect of Annie, during the residential assessment, but Lucy and Annie need much more than this throughout their lives.
- Lucy and Annie have established good emotional attachments to their foster carers but this is not an early permanence placement and they cannot remain where they are, therefore there is going to be a need for these two children to change their care arrangements again at some point. The longer it takes for this decision to be made the more prejudice occurs to the children's welfare as they form deeper attachments to their foster carers which will need to be broken.
- If Lucy or Annie become an adopted person they will lose the potential to be rehabilitated to the care of their parents if they go on to make any changes in the long term future, and they will lose part of their identity as they will no longer be members of their birth family but will join their own 'forever family'. The contact attended by the parents has, on the whole, been a positive experience for the children who have enjoyed spending time with them, no party has disputed how much the parents love their daughters and it is likely this will be a loss to them if contact is stopped.
- I also take into account that adoption outside of a child's birth family is not always successful and can break down in later years and cause further harm to a child. Fortunately, Lucy and Annie are both very young children who have been capable of forming the beginnings of some positive attachments to their foster carers which bodes well for them being able to be transfer such attachments to adoptive carers to make it a successful adoption. Any adoptive placement which is found will only be progressed after a robust and comprehensive assessment of the prospective adopter/s ability to meet the needs of both children together, and this will minimise the likelihood of any adoptive family placement breaking down. An adoptive placement will keep the children safe, it will meet their needs, it will provide them with life-long security and be free of the risks they are likely to face in the care of their parents.
- When I turn to consider the harm which the children have suffered or are likely to suffer and the proportionality of approving any decision for adoption, I must consider the cases of Re F and Re T above and how capable each of the parents or any other person may be to meet the needs of the children.
- The type of harm which the parents are likely to cause to Lucy and Annie is that set out in the facts approved to satisfy the statutory threshold for intervention and consists of neglect of their welfare in addition to physical and emotional harm. The parents made a very unwise decision to have a child at a time when they had no secure accommodation and compounded their poor decision making by leaving Lucy with someone they barely knew, they accept they did not know whether 'AS' was able to care for a child. Similarly, the parents' inability to prioritise Annie's welfare was a consistent theme throughout the residential assessment and it persuades me there has not been sufficient change in their parenting capacity over the past 15 months.
- In my judgment, the impact of that harm to the children's safety and welfare is considerable and likely to impact adversely upon not only their physical welfare but the children's emotional and psychological development. The neglect of a child's welfare is not a short term minor problem but affects all aspects of their development, it causes them to feel anxious and insecure not knowing how or if their needs will be met. It denies the child their right to a safe, secure, predictable home life from which they can go out into the world and thrive. It is likely to affect their emotional and psychological development not just in the short term but as adults, and it increases the likelihood of them experiencing mental health problems later in life as well as normalising the parents' aggressive style of interaction as a method of resolving conflict and disagreements.
- The current likelihood of the harm occurring is, in my judgment, a high one because of the parents' lack of real change since these proceedings began in respect of Lucy over a year ago. The local authority has provided the parents with ample opportunity to acquire the skills they need to parent the children but sadly, it has proved to be a too difficult task for them to achieve compounded as it is by their cognitive difficulties. I give credit to the parents for trying their very best, but the reality is they need more time to mature as adults before they will be equipped to assume the responsibility of caring for vulnerable children.
- When I turn to consider whether the risks may be reduced or mitigated by support services which could be made available, I am persuaded this is not the case immediately nor likely to be in any timescales which is meaningful for the children because this has been tried and tested for 11 weeks during the residential assessment and it failed. I note the father is now taking his sertraline medication which is beneficial for his mental health but he is still not being consistently open and honest about his cannabis use. Accordingly, I cannot conclude there is yet more support which could give the parents the capability to care for their children or to keep them safe from harm.
- I am persuaded that without successful change having occurred followed by a lengthy period of stability in the parents' lifestyle in the community, it is unlikely they will be able to keep Lucy or Annie safe from harm and alternative care outside of their birth family is the only realistic option.
- There has been no dispute there are no other family members or friends who have come forward and been positively assessed. The local authority has assessed other persons as set out above but their assessments have all been negative in their outcome and no party has suggested the court should conclude otherwise.
- The permanent removal of any child from the care of a birth parent is an option only to be taken when no other option will do. No party has advocated for the children to be placed in long term foster care and I have rejected it as an option to meet the welfare needs of Lucy and Annie because of the inherently greater likelihood of instability and insecurity in such placements for two children as young as these. Lucy and Annie have the right to a family life of their own, to form lifelong attachments which promote their unique identity and the preferred plan of adoption will provide them with that.
- Having conducted the holistic balancing exercise and having considered everything I have read and listened to, I have been persuaded that making the care and placement orders sought by the local authority is necessary to protect and safeguard the welfare of these two children and is a proportionate response to their situation, it is what Lucy's and Annie's welfare requires. Accordingly, I make final care orders and I approve the respective care plan for each child.
- In doing so, I can confirm I have considered the arrangements for contact as I am obliged to do pursuant to section 34(11) of the Children Act 1989. I endorse the proposals for contact put forward.
- The nature of the decision in cases such as these are always very distressing for parents to hear no matter how well prepared for the outcome they may be. The parents love their children a great deal and have been committed to seeing these proceedings through to the very end. They have attended court and conducted themselves with dignity and respect, and should Lucy or Annie ever read a transcript of this judgment in the future they would be proud of your commitment to them. I am sorry I cannot give the parents what they want, but my duty is to have each child's welfare as my paramount consideration and to make decisions based upon the evidence not upon where my sympathy lies. No matter how difficult my judgment is to read, I have to set out my reasons because this is an important decision for Lucy and Annie, and those reasons have to be recorded.
The Placement Order and s26 Contact Applications
- I can confirm that in making the Placement Orders I have read and considered the relevant documents in respect of those applications. I am satisfied that adoption is in the best interests of Lucy and Annie and is achievable for them. Before making a placement order I must also consider the arrangements for contact pursuant to section 27(4) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 (ACA 2002) and I will return to this further below. The parents have not given their unconditional consent and I must formally consider dispensing with their consent on the basis the welfare of these two children requires it. Having reached the conclusion that adoption is in their best interests in the care proceedings, it follows I must dispense with the parents' agreement to Lucy and Annie being placed for adoption in accordance with section 52 of the ACA 2002 in order to implement that plan. Accordingly, I dispense with the parents' consent to placing both children for adoption and authorise the local authority to place them with prospective adopters of its choice.
- I turn now to the application of the mother, supported by the father, if this stage were reached, to make orders for contact pursuant to Section 26 of the ACA 2002 in respect of Lucy and Annie. It is a request which is opposed by the local authority and children's guardian, who agree the issue of direct contact should be reviewed and reconsidered in the future, and I have considered the judgment of Bennett J in the case of Re C (Contact)[2008] 1 FLR 1151 FD in this respect.
- Upon the making of the placement orders the local authority's duty to promote contact under section 34 of the Children Act 1989 (re parental contact with children) comes to an end, and whilst those placement orders remain in force, no application may be made for an order under section 34 by the parents. Section 26 of the ACA 2002 permits this court to make an order for contact pursuant to section 26(2)(b) which would place a legal framework around the local authority's duty to promote contact even whilst the placement orders are in existence . When considering whether to make such an order I must afford paramount consideration to each child's welfare in accordance with section 1 of the ACA 2002.
- The recommendation of the allocated social worker, Ms Debbie Bellwood is for a permanent family to be found for Lucy and Annie who support some form of contact but she does not recommend direct contact at this stage. This is because of the concerns the professionals have about how the parents could or would manage this. Currently, it is more likely the meeting between the parents and any prospective adopters would trigger the parents to become angry and frustrated and it would not be productive. In the future it may be possible depending on how the parents adjust and accept the adoptive placement. The children's guardian agrees. I am persuaded to accept this conclusion because it is consistent with how the parents have struggled to accept and act upon professional advice during the assessment process. A meeting with any adoptive parents is likely to be highly emotional for all concerned and difficult for the most self-possessed parent to manage. Accordingly, I dismiss this application and endorse the proposals set out in the children's final care plans as being in their best interests.
- I direct the advocates to draft the various orders arising from this judgment and to incorporate the final threshold within it.
- In the event any party requires any further clarification or reasons in respect of any issue I reserve the right to provide the same once it has been brought to my attention. I remind the parties that any application for leave to appeal must be made within 21 days of the date of this judgment. In accordance with the judgment of McFarlane LJ in Re H (Children) [2015] EWCA Civ 583, the care and placement orders drawn by the court will have this reminder recorded on the face of the order.
- In accordance with FPR Part 12 Chapter 7 and Practice Direction 12G, the local authority shall provide a copy of this judgment to the South Yorkshire Police for the purpose of any criminal investigation and/or the Crown Prosecution Service to enable it to discharge its functions under any enactment.
H.H. JUDGE MARSON
Dated: 4th June 2025
SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS APPROVED BY THE COURT IN SATISFACTION OF THE SECTION 31 STATUTORY CRITERIA
At the time the local authority intervened to protect the children, the children were likely to suffer significant harm attributable to the care given to them and likely to be given to them by their parents, [the mother] and [the father] which is not reasonable. The significant harm likely to be suffered by the children is in the form of physical and emotional harm and neglect of their welfare.
1. Prior to 5 March 2024, the parents caused themselves to become homeless by embarking upon a planned pregnancy whilst living in supported accommodation where children could not live. The parents knew they could not live in this accommodation with a child which caused instability in their living arrangements and for Lucy once she was born. As a result of not having a stable and suitable property the parents were placed with Lucy in a Travelodge by the local authority. This placed Lucy at risk of physical harm, emotional harm and neglect.
2. Whilst staying at the Travelodge the parents placed Lucy with an acquaintance, 'AS', of whom they had insufficient knowledge as to whether she was able to care for a young baby. They failed to secure the return of Lucy from 'AS' on the evening of 4 March 2024 and into the early hours of the 5 March 2024 whilst residing in a room near to 'AS'. 'AS' repeatedly refused to return Lucy to the care of the parents following their requests for Lucy's return. The parents were unable to confirm Lucy's wellbeing or safety whilst she was in the care of 'AS'. 'AS' consumed alcohol in the presence of the parents prior to caring for Lucy that evening. The parents failed to contact the Police or notify Social Care or seek any assistance in having Lucy returned to their care. This placed Lucy at risk of physical and emotional harm and neglect.
3. The parents have minimised the concerns of the Local Authority in respect of the events on the 4th and 5th March 2024. This places the children at risk of neglect, emotional harm and physical harm.
4. Lucy was made the subject of Police Powers of Protection on 5 March 2024 after the Police found Lucy in a room in the Travelodge with 'AS' who initially denied Lucy was present in the room to the attending Police officers. 'AS' had placed a pillow over Lucy's face placing Lucy in potential danger. The parents were arrested for cruelty to / neglect of a child and they continue to be subjected to bail conditions preventing them from having unsupervised contact with Lucy. This parents' decision to place Lucy with 'AS' placed her at risk of physical harm, emotional harm and neglect.
5. The Father has been the subject of a psychological assessment completed in 2019 which concluded that his presentation is consistent with deficits in social communication of a degree that is associated with a diagnosis of ASD with symptoms of ADHD including restlessness, difficulty concentrating and impulsivity. This contributed to the father exercising poor judgment by choosing to place Lucy with 'AS' at the Travelodge. The mother is the registered carer for the father, she did not protect Lucy from the father's poor judgment and equally exercised poor judgment herself. The father has continued to behave impulsively and this behaviour manifested itself during the residential assessment, including throwing items, swearing, speaking aggressively and shouting whilst Annie was in their care. This behaviour is likely to place the children at risk of emotional and physical harm and neglect.
Approved and adopted as the final threshold.
H.H. Judge Marson
Dated: 4 June 2025