England and Wales County Court (Family)

IN THE COUNTY COURT
AT CANTERBURY

		Canterbury County Court.
		5th February 2014

JUDGE MURDOCH:

1. These are care proceedings and placement proceedings. The proceedings relate to M, a girl, who was born in July 1999 and is now fourteen and a half, and A, a boy, who was born in August 2008 and is therefore now five and a half. The mother of both children is Ms B, who was born in June 1979. The father of M was PB, who unfortunately died in November 2011. The father of A is MB, who was born in September 1957. Also a party to these proceedings is the maternal grandmother, Mrs W, who was born in April 1950 and is now therefore 63. The placement proceedings only relate to A, whereas the care proceedings relate to both children. There is also a special guardianship order application made by the maternal grandmother in respect of A.
2. The position of the parties in these proceedings is as follows. The local authority is seeking a care order in respect of M but not actively opposing the suggestion that she makes that she should remain accommodated under s.20 of the Children Act 1989. She has in fact been the subject of an interim care order, or a series of interim care orders, in these proceedings since June 2013, but prior to that time was living, as I shall relate, in foster care under s.20. There is no dispute regarding where M should remain (it is agreed on all sides that she should remain in her current foster placement, where she has in fact been since September 2011) and it is agreed that she should continue to have contact with her mother and maternal grandmother by informal arrangement. Regarding A, there is a substantial issue. The local authority invites me to make a care order on the basis of a care plan which envisages his being placed for adoption. The search for adopters, they say, would continue for six months in parallel to a search for long-term foster carers, to guard against the contingency that suitable adopters might not be found. If, after a six month period, no suitable adopters are found, then he would be placed in long-term foster care. It is the local authority's intention to arrange continuing face to face contact, if he is placed for adoption, between A and his sister M, provided that prospective adopters can be identified who will facilitate and be willing to accept such ongoing direct contact. The local authority plans indirect contact to the mother and maternal grandmother.
3. The mother, maternal grandmother and M all oppose the adoptive care plan. The maternal grandmother seeks a special guardianship order and A's placement in her care. She is not supported in that by any of the parties before the court. M has instructed her own lawyers and at the hearing in front of me she has remained in court throughout the proceedings. She has gone into the witness box and, although she has not taken the oath, has told me directly her views about the issues before the court. She invites the court to issue to the local authority an invitation that they amend their existing care plan to provide for long-term fostering as the way in which A should be cared for. She also invites me to say to the local authority that he should remain in his present foster placement with M. That is a foster placement in which he could remain, so far as the foster carers are concerned, for at least another seven or eight years until the foster mother reaches the age of 65. At that point she may retire, but there is some uncertainty as to whether in fact she would do so. The proposal by M to the court is that A should remain with the foster carers until they decide to retire from foster care and only then move to a different foster placement. If the court is against that proposal, M asks that the court should still not approve of the local authority's care plan for adoption but should invite the local authority to change its care plan to long-term fostering so that A would move to another long-term foster placement within the next few months. In the event that the court approves of the adoptive care plan, M's position is that the court should, nevertheless, not make a placement order in this case because of the uncertainty as to whether prospective adopters would be willing to accept ongoing contact between herself and A. If the court makes a placement order, then the court is invited to make an order under s.26 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, stipulating that there should be ongoing contact between A and M. I should make it plain that the maternal grandmother's position accords with what I have stated to be M's position in the event that her application for a special guardianship order is unsuccessful. The mother's position in the witness box was that she wished M and A to be placed in her care, but she saw that as something that she was seeking as an ideal result rather than something that could happen in the immediate future. The mother has, as I shall relate, considerable personal difficulties and she accepts that it might be some time before the children could be placed in her care. She opposes, as I have said, the plan for adoption and she takes a similar position to M's in regard to the other options which are available. The guardian's position is that A should be placed for adoption, if an adopter can be identified within a six month period, and she supports the making of a care order and a placement order in respect of him. Those then are the parties' positions.
4. The background to these proceedings is as follows. The mother's upbringing was adversely affected by her own mother's excessive drinking, which began following the death of a partner in 1985, when the mother would have been about six years of age. The maternal grandmother's drinking exposed her children to neglect and domestic violence, and indeed her older children were in care for some time. In the mother's adult life, she first came to the attention of social services in May 2008 when there was a domestic violence incident between the mother and A's father, MB. The mother was pregnant with A at that time. She moved into a refuge while M, then aged eight, stayed with her own father for a period. The mother's excessive drinking continued to be a problem throughout the years that followed, as did the domestically abusive relationship between the mother and MB. Matters finally came to a head in June 2011 when M reported that her mother and A were not at home. The mother was eventually located in an intoxicated state at the address of one of the mother's friends. Following this incident, A went to live with the maternal grandmother. Mrs W had suffered a serious bout of gastrointestinal bleeding in April 2011 and following that incident had resolved to abstain from drinking alcohol at that time. M stayed with a family friend for a period, but in September 2011 was accommodated by the local authority pursuant to s.20 and went to stay with Mr and Mrs S (local authority foster carers), with whom she is still residing. Sadly, as I have said, M's father, PB, died in November 2011. The local authority in due course carried out a special guardianship assessment of Mrs W to determine whether she could be a special guardian for A. That assessment appears, although undated, to have been completed in January 2013. It concluded that, despite a number of health difficulties and her history of excessive drinking, the local authority would on balance support Mrs W seeking a special guardianship order. However, there was a serious incident on 14th March 2013 when the Fire Brigade were called out to Mrs W's flat. A fire had taken place in the kitchen due to an oven being left on and there being a build up of fat and grease in the oven. The home conditions were extremely poor. A number of empty cans of strong lager were found in the bin. The duty housing manager who attended the home that evening is reported to have said that Mrs W was acting strangely and that the manager believed that she may have been drunk. Mrs W and A were taken to hospital. Mrs W was in a debilitated state, suffering from dehydration and malnutrition. Inquiries by the local authority of the school attended by A revealed that he had missed a number of days schooling during the previous two weeks and that, when the school had telephoned Mrs W to inquire about this, she had been vague and difficult to follow in giving any reasons. On 17th March 2013, A was discharged from hospital into the same foster home as his sister M, the mother having agreed to his also being accommodated under s.20. A has remained there since then. He had a number of problems on arriving in the foster home. He was, of course, distressed by the recent events (the fire and his leaving his grandmother's care) but there were other problems which the foster carer identified. She had met A prior to his coming into her care - visiting him with M at the grandmother's home. She recounted in a statement given in September of last year that she did have, and still had at that time concerns in respect of him. He struggled with the basics in personal care, he was still wetting, although this was not something that happened all the time by September, he was struggling to use a knife and fork and struggling to dress himself. He would just stand there and cry until someone helped him dress. He could not do his buttons or shoelaces up. He could read very well, but had great difficulties in all other areas academically. She did, however, note that, between his arriving in her care in March and her statement in September, he had made some very significant improvements. He used to be very quiet at school but he had by then come out of himself and was trying hard. He used to dribble a lot and that would cause sores around his mouth and she had to tell him how to swallow, but the dribbling was better by September. The foster carer gave evidence before me and she was asked about his progress and told me that he can now dress himself, he does not wet himself, has come on a lot with his knife and fork and the crying problem seems to have disappeared, he was slowly catching up in all areas. He still required extra support at school and at home. The dribbling was a great deal better. Overall, there had been a significant improvement since September.
5. So far as the grandmother is concerned, there was an incident following her discharge from hospital, and the incident may have been as late as the summer of 2013, when she drank half a bottle of vodka and took about eight to 10 paracetamol tablets. She was not hospitalised but felt very ill and she has told me that she has not had a drink after that time. The foster carer had taken A to see his grandmother while she was in hospital after the fire and, following her return home, she has been seeing A every fortnight for two hours after school on a Wednesday, meeting him from the school bus with the foster carer and coming back to the foster home. It is apparent from the evidence I have heard that A greatly enjoys these visits and he frequently asks for his grandmother between visits. The mother has, unfortunately, only seen A on, it appears, two occasions since he went into foster care, the last occasion being in September of last year. She herself asked for contacts to be reduced in frequency, to monthly, but said she was not sure that she would be able to maintain that, and in the event she has not been able to do so. M sees her mother fairly frequently and is in frequent touch with her by phone and text, and she also has fairly frequent contact with her grandmother. That really is a brief summary of the background to this case.
6. At the hearing, I have heard oral evidence from 10 witnesses, including in that M answering questions and telling me her position from the witness box. I have heard from Lisa Healey, the current foster carer, as well as from the previous foster carers, and I have also heard from a social worker who prepared an addendum to the updated special guardianship assessment of Mrs W. I have heard from Paul Le Bargy, who is a housing officer who attended the grandmother's home following the fire, and he told me about the empty strong lager cans in the kitchen bin, as well as the condition of the property. I have heard from the foster carer, Mrs S, from the mother, the maternal grandmother, from M and from the guardian.
7. In terms of making findings of fact at this hearing, there is not a great deal of dispute of fact for me to resolve. One issue which does arise is as to the extent to which Mrs W was in fact drinking alcohol in March 2013. Her position in her written evidence was that she had not had any alcohol, save for the vodka that she had drunk after A had been removed. She entirely disputed in her written evidence the finding of the cans in the bin and could not account for that at all. In her oral evidence she told me that the cans (some eight or nine of them) had been brought round by a former drinking friend who had visited her. He was a man whom she knew to smoke marijuana and she told him that he could not use that drug in her house but he could bring something to drink. She says now that she did have half a can of lager. Bearing in mind Mrs W's contradictory statement previously in her written evidence, I have to say that I found her evidence limiting the extent of her alcohol drinking in March 2013 to be evidence which I could not accept. I am satisfied that she was at that time drinking rather more than she now admits.
8. So far as the other evidence is concerned, I want to particularly highlight the evidence of Mrs S, the foster carer. In regard to her retirement, she said in evidence-in-chief, that "at 65 she would love to retire but who knows?" She is 57 now. In answer to the question of what her attitude was to continuing to care for A as well as M, she told me, "Given that they're so close, I would go along with that." She felt that, if he had to leave her care when she was 65 (when he would be 13), he would be older and his understanding would be better than it is now and that he would be able to cope with that. Later in her evidence, in regard to her retirement plans, she said, "In reality, we'd all like to retire at 65 but I could still be fostering, depending on the climate. Probably, I still will be." With regard to the relationship between M and A, she told me that she felt their relationship had grown in the time they had been living together under her roof; in other words, for the last 10 or 11 months or so. She said they are very close. She was quite clear that they loved one another. She said that she was worried about how A will react if he is separated from M. In fact, she felt he would react badly. She did not think A would be able to cope without seeing M. She was worried about the possible search for an adoptive placement in view of M's strong views. She told me that it would be very hard for both of them and that she was worried because their bond is so strong and they adore one another. As for A's relationship with his Nan, she told me, "It's extremely important for A to see his nan. He'd be devastated if he did not see her." She thought that, if you asked A the question whether he would like to go and live with his Nan, he would say yes, he would like to. She felt that he would not cope with just seeing her a few times a year; he needs to know he can always see her.
9. I turn now to the decisions which the court has to make. First of all, the court has to be satisfied that the threshold criteria for making care orders, or at least a care order in respect of A, are met in this case. The parties have agreed a threshold document. It requires some alteration because at present it refers to, "Reasonable grounds to believe that M and A were at the relevant date likely to suffer significant harm." In my judgment, it should read, "At the relevant date M and A were likely to suffer significant harm attributable to the care given to them if an order were not made not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give them." The relevant date for determining the threshold criteria is not set out in terms in the document, but it seems to me, bearing in mind the authorities, that the date in respect of M was 6th September 2011, when she was accommodated pursuant to s.20, and was 26th June 2011, when A was placed with his maternal grandmother. In the event that the relevant date in respect of A is properly regarded as 17th March 2013, when he went into s.20 foster care, it seems to me that the court would also be satisfied that, in view of the events of 14th March and the period leading up to that when the grandmother's condition had deteriorated, he was in view of those matters also likely to suffer significant harm. The remaining matters set out in the document are as follows. I use the paragraphs in the document:

"3. The mother misuses alcohol and prioritises her needs over those of her children."

There are then a number of subparagraphs:

"(a) The mother drinks alcohol and has done so significantly for a number of years. The mother has not engaged with services to address this.

(b) On 13th of January 2011 a friend of the mother informed Castle Hill School that M was being left by herself for long periods of time and was caring for A.

(c) On 18th of February 2011, M informed Castle Hill School that she was worried as the mother had spent all of her money on alcohol the previous night.

(d) On 11th of June 2011 the mother went out with friends, leaving the children in the care of their maternal grandmother. The mother failed to come home. M went to see her mother the following day. The mother was drinking neat vodka and told M to fuck off.

(e) The mother informed the local authority that she has a drink problem. She has stated that she drank around five 3 litre bottles of cider a week in the house.

(f) On 26th of June 2011, M reported that she could not locate her mother. She found her at a nearby address where her mother and other adults had been drinking. A family friend collected M. A remained with his mother, who was intoxicated."

It continues:

"4. The mother has a history of depression and suicide attempts. The mother most recently overdosed on tablets on 14th February 2013.

5. The mother and MB have a violent relationship. There are reports of domestic violence on the 7th of May 2008, 23rd of August 2012, the 30th of August 2012, the 10th of November 2012 and the 3rd of November 2012. A violent incident between the mother and MB occurred on 2nd July 2013. The mother hit MB with a glass bottle.

6. MB suffers from ill-health. He has had two strokes at the age of 40 and 45. He has previously broken his back and is awaiting an operation for cataracts. On the 15th of August 2012, MB informed the social worker that he was unable to offer full-time care to A because of his health issues.

7. MB has a long history of alcohol misuse and has not engaged with services to address this.

8. MB has had no contact with A in the past year [that is, in the year prior to October 2012] and has failed to engage with offers to arrange contact. MB last saw A at a core group meeting on the 21st of February 2012."

The position so far as threshold is concerned, therefore, is, for the reasons set out in that document, and also from the circumstances to which I have referred, which occurred in the period leading up to 14th March 2013 and on that date, I am satisfied that at the relevant dates both children were likely to suffer significant harm if a care order were not made.

10. I should now refer to the position of MB.. He has played no part in these proceedings, although he has been made aware of them, and the position remains that he has not seen A since February two years ago.
11. The court, having addressed the question of threshold, must now go on to consider the welfare questions which arise and I, first of all, deal with the welfare questions concerning M. As I have mentioned, it is agreed that she should stay with Mr and Mrs S. She is doing well at school and would like in due course to go on to university. She would prefer to remain with Mr and Mrs S as an accommodated child under s.20 rather than be the subject of a care order. No other party opposes actively that suggestion but leaves the matter for the court to decide. The effect, of course, of the matter proceeding under s.20 is that the local authority would not have parental responsibility for M. The only person with parental responsibility would be her mother. However, in the period from September 2011 until interim care orders were made in June 2013, no difficulty arose with that arrangement. Sometimes the mother is difficult to contact but it appears to this court that matters requiring the input of someone with parental responsibility will either arise by way of an emergency, which can be dealt with by the foster carers and by the local authority without having parental responsibility and any medical attention can be judged on the basis of what is in M's interests, or else will arise with greater time for the mother to be contacted. There is nothing to suggest that the mother would use her parental responsibility in a way which would be detrimental to M's care. I have to bear in mind the "no order" principle in s.1(5) of the Children Act 1989; that is to say, when considering whether to make an order under the Act, the court should not make an order unless it considers that making it would be better for the child than making no order at all. Bearing in mind all these circumstances, I am satisfied that I should make no order in respect of M, on the basis that she is to remain accommodated pursuant to s.20.
12. The second welfare question which I must address is, of course, a much more difficult question, that is to say, what orders should I make regarding A. If I consider that a care order is required for him, should I approve the existing care plan for an adoptive placement search, with the proposed amendments to make it plain that that search is to last for six months and to be in parallel to a long-term foster care search and that, if no adoptive placement is found, for him then to be placed with long-term foster carers? In approaching that question I have to consider all the circumstances of this case and decide what is in the best interests of A, treating his welfare as my paramount consideration and having regard, in particular, to the matters set out in the welfare checklists in s.1(3) of the Children Act, and in s.1(4) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, in so far as I am considering the question of adoption. The first item in the welfare checklists relates to the ascertainable wishes and feelings of A himself, considered in the light of his age and understanding. The fact is that no one has broached with A the question of his possibly moving on to another family and ceasing to live with his sister M. I can, I think, understand that, in the absence of a clear route for the future, it was thought difficult on the part of the social worker and the guardian to make that inquiry. I have already referred to what the foster carer said about his likely wishes if he was asked the question about living with his grandmother, to whom he is obviously devoted. And so, there is very little information in respect of that item in the checklist. I must have regard to A's physical, emotional and educational needs. He needs to be physically well cared for. He also needs to have a loving environment which is both safe and secure. He needs to have encouragement to do well educationally. I must consider the likely effect on him of any change in his circumstances. I attach some significance to the foster carer's evidence about how he would react to a substantial reduction in his contact with his grandmother and, more importantly, to not living with M and possibly seeing her only very infrequently, if at all. It seems to me that the foster carer is in a good position to judge that reaction. I am concerned as to how, indeed, A would react to the very idea of moving from his current home and leaving M. It seems to me quite possible that he would show his opposition and resistance to such a course. It might be very difficult indeed to influence A to the point where he was accepting of such a move. I have no doubt that the foster carer would do her best and that M would not consciously do anything to harm her brother, but even so it seems to me that a move away from the foster home would be likely to have quite a serious adverse effect on A. I have to consider his age, sex, background and any characteristics of his which the court considers relevant. Despite being only five and a half, I have been told that A has quite a good head on his shoulders, although he is needing additional help at school and at home. I was told, indeed, by the guardian that he has a significant sense of self which he has developed in the foster home. It seems to me that his history, which I have briefly related, and the time that he spent living with his grandmother are important features of his background. His strong connection with his sister M is also an important feature. I have to consider any harm which A has suffered or is at risk of suffering. It seems to me that the A who came into foster care had not made such progress as he might have made living with his grandmother. She had certainly applied herself with commitment and love to looking after him, but the impression of the school was that he was showing a degree of what they termed "learned helplessness". Given that "harm" is defined as including an impairment of development, it seems to me that he had suffered some harm, both in the latter stages of living with his grandmother and as a result of his removal from her care. He had also no doubt suffered harm when experiencing the inconsistent care from his mother before June 2011. I have to consider how capable each of his parents and any other person in relation to whom the court considers the question to be relevant is of meeting A's needs. So far as MB is concerned, there is simply no indication that MB is capable of meeting A's needs at all. So far as the mother is concerned, she has, by her lack of commitment to contact, shown that she, too, because of her own personal difficulties, is not in a position to meet A's needs. The grandmother's position, on the other hand, is that she has shown a consistency in contact which has been very important for him. She has met his need for a continuing relationship with her in that way. The question, however, which I must address is the extent to which Mrs W is able to meet A's care needs at the present time. Neither the mother nor M invite me to make a special guardianship order in respect of A to his grandmother. They take that position partly because they feel, it seems to me, that it would be taking on more than Mrs W can really cope with. Her health needs are very significant. She has a serious problem with osteoporosis. She had a heart attack in 2005 and takes medication for that. She was diagnosed as suffering from mild chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in February 2013. She was diagnosed as having portal hypertension and gastropathy in May 2013. In January 2014, a note of her medical history says, "Chronic kidney disease, stage 3." As far as the grandmother herself is concerned, her kidney problems are merely undergoing investigation, but the whole picture of Mrs W medically is such that it seems to me that it would be placing a very great burden upon her for A to be returned to her care. Additionally, there is the possibility of a further relapse so far as alcohol is concerned. I am satisfied that there was, as I have said, a relapse in March of last year, and the court simply cannot exclude the possibility that there will be another relapse in the future if she is placed under undue strain. Part of her problems in March 2013 related to her difficulty in getting A to school, given her osteoporosis problems. What Mrs W says is that she fell into difficulties because she was not prepared to seek help. She realises now that, if she got into difficulties again, she would have to seek help, and she says she has made that change in her approach, but she has no support network to back her up. Her other children, David and Amanda, are working and are not able to be immediately available to help if there is a problem, and Mrs W herself told me that she accepted that, if there was a medical issue which arose which precluded her from caring for A, she would probably have to put him back into foster care. She realises that that would be potentially devastating for him. It seems to me for those reasons that there are very large question marks indeed against the capability of Mrs W to meet A's needs. I am satisfied that his needs are being very well met in the present foster home. Although it is a busy and at times noisy place, he receives a lot of attention. In that home there is not only M and Mr and Mrs S but there is a 10 year old female foster child with whom A gets on very well and a 35 year old grown up daughter of Mr and Mrs S. The fact that it is a busy and noisy home is a matter which concerns the guardian, who feels that A might be to some extent lost in that environment, but I am not at all convinced of that. It seems to me that he is flourishing in that home and benefiting from the attention of the various people who live in it to help him with his reading and the availability of the 10 year old to play with, as well, of course, as, importantly, his sister M - and I have seen the very touching description of how she plays with him. That is something that happens, I am sure, at present on a daily basis. Of course, M will not be there for more than another three and a half years or so, but in the foster home, it seems to me that the foster carers are very capable of meeting A's needs.
13. I have to consider the range of powers available to the court under the Children Act and, for that matter, under the 2002 Act, and the availability of a s.26 contact order in the event that a placement order is made, which might thereby require the local authority to find prospective adopters who would accept contact between M and A. Looking at the 2002 Act checklist, I have to consider the relationship which A has with relatives and with any other relevant person. Included in that are, of course, his relationship with his grandmother and his sister, but he also frequently asks after his mother. At the present time she has not been able to make herself available for very much contact with him, but he nonetheless has that continuing relationship. I was also told by the foster carer how there are regular visits by his aunt Amanda with her husband and two children, and that is something that appears to have been arranged with the previous social worker and of which the existing social worker was unaware, but at present those relationships exist. I have to consider the likelihood of them continuing and the value to A of them continuing. It seems to me that at present, if he remains where he is, those relationships are likely to continue. Even after M leaves the home, I suspect that she would be a frequent visitor and a regular feature in A's life. The value to A of those relationships continuing is that they would give him a continuing sense of his own identity - a sense which he has at present but which will continue to grow if those relationships do continue. I have to consider the ability and willingness of any of the child's relatives or of any other relevant person to provide A with a secure environment in which he can develop and otherwise have his needs met. It is clear, in my judgment, that, although the mother is willing, and indeed wishing, to provide A with a home for the future at some stage, she is very far from the position where she would be able to do so, and judging from what I have read about her and seeing her in the witness box, it seems to me unlikely that Ms B will be able to provide a home for A at any point during his childhood. The position of Mrs W, I have already referred to when considering capability of meeting A's needs. It seems to me that there are serious problems, in the way of a conclusion, that Mrs W would have the ability to provide a secure environment for A in the future. And I have, of course, to consider the wishes and feelings of any of A's relatives or any other relevant person concerning A. I think I have said enough on that subject not to require repetition.
14. Having analysed the matter by way of the welfare checklist, I propose now to consider the advantages and disadvantages to A of each of the potential solutions for his care. Although the mother's wish to care for him was put forward perhaps more in hope than in expectation, I propose to consider the mother first. The advantages of his being looked after by his mother would be the fact that she is his mother and that she would like to look after him as soon as that is feasible. However, she cannot care for him now, she accepts that. She has not been able to commit to any form of regular contact. It was plain from her oral evidence that she is at present in a very poor state. She was extremely vague about many of the things that she was asked about and there is no evidence that she has been able adequately to address either her drinking or her mental health problems. Finally, even as recently as about 10 days ago, she was visited by A's father, so that there is still a risk from that quarter, although she told me, and I accept, that she would not let MB into her home. Looking at the disadvantages, it seems to me that they plainly rule out Ms B as a possible carer for A.
15. Then I turn to the special guardianship order application by Mrs W. The advantages of such a placement would be that it would be, first of all, a placement within A's natural family. Secondly, he has a loving relationship with her. Thirdly, she has been a constant feature in his life and, finally, as I have mentioned, the foster carer believes that A would be keen to go and live there. But the disadvantages are these. Firstly, her use of alcohol in the future cannot be ruled out. Her health problems are very considerable. Her age, although not by any means a conclusive factor against taking on the care of a five year old, is a negative factor, taken together with her health problems. The family view is that she would be taking on too much. She herself acknowledges that there is the risk that A might have to return to foster care and then there is the significant progress which A has made in the foster placement - a progress which he would, it seems to me, almost necessarily forfeit if he was to return to his grandmother's care. So, there are considerable disadvantages to that option.
16. Then I consider the local authority's plan: adoption. The advantages include that, if A was successfully placed with adoptive carers, he would have a sense of completely belonging in a new family, without any social work interference and bureaucracy after the initial period, once an adoption order is made. There would be, on the local authority's plan, at least the possibility of ongoing direct contact with his sister and certainly the likelihood of ongoing indirect contact to all members of his maternal family. There is the disadvantage that, if he were to be placed for adoption, he would cease to live with his sister and it is unlikely, it seems to me, that prospective adopters would contemplate contact of anything more than twice a year to his sister, and so his contact with her would be extremely limited. There is no real possibility that he would continue to have direct contact with his grandmother, let alone his aunt and uncle. It seems to me that there would be a risk that, if the adoptive care plan were approved by the court, that A would himself resist that plan and that, despite the best efforts of the social worker and the foster carer, he would not see a net advantage for him in moving away to another home. It seems to me that there would be a risk of his waiting for six months and then the local authority finding that he cannot be placed with adopters because of that resistance. Another disadvantage is the effect on A of the loss of direct contact. The foster carer's evidence was that he would be devastated if he did not see his grandmother and that he would not cope without having contact with his sister. In my judgment, A's relationship with his sister and his grandmother are a vital part of his present sense of himself. If those relationships are taken away, he will be adversely affected to a serious degree. Another disadvantage is the risk that, even if an adoptive placement occurs, it will, in the context of what I have already mentioned, be an unsuccessful placement because of the loss of A's direct family links with his grandmother and a marked reduction of those links with his sister.
17. I turn to long-term foster care. The advantage of long-term foster care is that A would continue to see his own family members who are so important to him. He would have the support of his sister, even if that meant a move from his present foster placement. There would be a greater chance of the placement being successfully promoted to him, given the ongoing direct family contact. Against a long-term foster placement there are these features. There would be the ongoing involvement of the local authority as his corporate parent, with six monthly looked after child reviews, personal education planning meetings and annual medicals, with restrictions on whom he stays with, and visits regularly from a social worker. Some of that support could, of course, be regarded as positive, but there are respects in which that continued local authority involvement can properly be regarded as amounting to a disadvantage. It is generally held that there would be a potentially higher disruption rate in a foster placement than in an adoptive placement. If placed with long-term foster carers there is also the consideration that A would have less of a sense of completely belonging there than if successfully placed with an adoptive family.
18. Then I should consider the advantages and disadvantages of A remaining with Mr and Mrs S as opposed to moving on to new foster carers. The advantages include the fact that, as I find, he is flourishing in the S's home. Secondly, they obviously want to keep him, although they are not committed to doing so throughout his minority because of the wish possibly to retire in seven or eight years' time. Thirdly, he would be able to continue to live with his sister for the next three and a half years. Fourthly, the current level of contact could continue. It is a level of contact that is working well for him at present. Fifthly, he could stay at his present school. Sixthly, the possibility of A remaining there after Mrs S reaches the age of 65 is not altogether ruled out. The disadvantages include the likelihood that he would have to move when he is about 12 or 13 years of age. There is the fact that there would be, as there are now, other foster children in the foster home, possibly replaced from time to time, so that when M leaves there may be another new foster child. That could be seen both as an advantage and as a disadvantage. Thirdly, there is the fact that his current level of family contact makes his present placement very much a foster placement as opposed to the kind of placement which adoption would provide. That could be seen as in some sense a disadvantage. There is the fact that, when A has to move on, if he does, it might be difficult for him. Of course, if he is 12 or 13 at that time, it could be explained to him why he has to move and, in my judgment, he would find it a great deal easier to move at that stage in his life than he would at the present time.
19. Looking at all these advantages and disadvantages, I propose to give my decision in relation to each of them in turn. As far as placement with the mother is concerned, it follows really from what I have already said that, although I am satisfied that Ms B does love her son, she is not in a position to provide him with care, either at the present time or in the foreseeable future.
20. I now propose to deal with Mrs W's special guardianship application. Despite all she has done for A to date and her importance to A in terms of his sense of self, in my judgment, the prospect of her being able to provide good enough care for the rest of A's childhood is not sufficiently good to justify that course being taken. There is a very real risk that her health my break down, there is also a real risk that she may succumb to alcohol. She would be taking on too much, in my judgment, and A's welfare would be placed at risk. The gains he has made in foster care would probably not be maintained and his development would probably be impaired. So, I reject that application.
21. I turn to the adoption option. If that were achieved successfully, it would place A in a permanent family for the rest of his childhood, a family to which he would belong on a lifelong basis, albeit not his biological family. There would, however, be a substantial losses to him: the loss of his sister, apart from indirect contact and the possibility of direct contact, say, twice a year; the loss of his grandmother, apart from indirect contact; and the loss of other members of his maternal family, except for indirect contact. In addition, it seems to me that approval of the adoptive option would place A in an extremely difficult situation for the next six months: living with his sister, whom he adores, yet having to be brought to terms with a decision by the court that he is to be placed away from her, away from the home in which he is flourishing, in a new home from which he would no longer have any contact with his grandmother and would only see his sister perhaps twice a year. I am convinced that he would be very resistant to that idea. The guardian believes that that could be managed by virtue of work being done with A and with M, but I very much doubt that that work would be successful in bringing him round to a positive view of an adoptive placement. The guardian herself in her evidence said that her favouring of adoption was something she reached on a fine balance. A would have to live in a situation of emotional strain for up to six months. If and when adoptive parents were identified, he would be unlikely to approach his introduction to them in a positive frame of mind. There would be substantial scope for the introduction to be unsuccessful or for the placement, if it proceeded to that stage, to be subject to an early breakdown. That would all be potentially very damaging for A. Considering all the advantages and disadvantages of an adoptive placement in the particular circumstances of this case, I am not persuaded that it would be in A's welfare interests for the court to authorise such a placement. I accept that in so concluding I am differing from the advice of A's guardian, Miss Lobb, but I note that she did describe it, as I have mentioned, as a position reached on a fine balance. In my judgment, moreover, she attached too little weight to what I consider to be the very real difficulties in effecting an adoptive placement in the particular circumstances of this case and the serious adverse impact that the loss of direct contact with the maternal grandmother would have on him and the adverse impact of the severe curtailment of his contact with his sister would have on him - particularly when one considers the adoptive option as a remedy of last resort which should only be chosen if nothing else will do. The evidence in this case falls well short, in my judgment, of justifying the choice of that option for A. I bear in mind that, in considering whether or not to approve an adoptive care plan, the court must consider as paramount A's welfare throughout his life and should apply the welfare checklist in s.1(4) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002. I have considered all those factors.
22. In my judgment, the option for the care of A which would best promote his welfare is his placement with long-term foster parents. Despite the ongoing involvement of the local authority throughout his minority which that would entail, with the accompanying regulations and bureaucracy, I consider that the continuing ability of the local authority to facilitate contact with his family and the resulting expectation that A would be accepting of a long-term foster placement makes this option the one which the court should choose as best promoting his welfare interests. Moreover, it seems to me that the court should consider whether he should now move on to a new foster placement or should remain in his existing placement. I have already reviewed the advantages and disadvantages of each option. The obvious disadvantage is that there is the definite possibility, if not probability, that Mr and Mrs S will give up fostering in about seven or eight years' time. A would then have to move, if that happened, to an alternative foster placement. That is a clear disadvantage. However, I note that Mrs S told me what I have already recorded, to the effect that she could still be fostering beyond that age and probably still would be. It is not certain that A would have to move at that time. Mrs S is obviously very fond of A - that was clear from the way in which she gave her evidence - and it seems to me that there is a real possibility that he might not have to move. If he did have to move at age 12 or 13, he would be of an age at which he may find it easier to make such a transition than if he had to do so within the next six months. The fact that he is flourishing in the placement and doing very well at his school are further important features. He would be able to spend a further three and a half years or so in the same placement as his sister. That would be a great advantage for him. I am satisfied that he has a good relationship not only with Mr and Mrs S but also with their grown up 35 year old daughter who lives there and also with the other foster child - although I do not know how much longer that child will continue in the placement. A move of placement would, of course, mean that he could move to a placement with younger foster carers, but looking at the advantages and disadvantages of each option, I am satisfied that the better option for him by quite a significant margin would be to remain with Mr and Mrs S.
23. For these reasons, I will not give my approval to the existing care plan and will instead invite the local authority to amend its care plan to set out the plan of A remaining in his existing foster placement on a long-term basis.
24. So far as contact is concerned, I see no necessity for a reduction in the maternal grandmother's contact from its present fortnightly basis of two hours on each occasion. That seems to me to be working well. I note that in the submissions made on behalf of the guardian, it was submitted that, if A is to remain with Mr and Mrs S, the guardian would support the contact continuing at that frequency. As to the mother's contact, there is some question as to whether she will be able to commit to contact in the future. I hope she may be able to do so. However, I consider that the frequency planned for that contact of once every six or seven weeks during school holidays seems a sensible arrangement. All contact can, of course, be reviewed at the six monthly reviews.
25. Subject to the local authority confirming that it will amend its care plan to conform to this judgment, I will make a care order to Kent County Council in respect of A, being satisfied in those circumstances that it is in his interests to do so.
26. As to the application for a placement order, it follows from what I have already said that I am not persuaded that it is in A's welfare interests, looking at his welfare throughout his lifetime, to be placed for adoption. I am, moreover, very far from being satisfied that his welfare would require such an order to be made. I would, of course, need to be satisfied of that before I would be entitled to dispense with the consents of A's parents to the making of such an order. For all these reasons, I will refuse the application for a placement order.
27. Subject to any matter that any of the advocates wishes to raise with me, that concludes this judgment.
---------------------------------------------------------