England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges)

IN THE FAMILY COURT
Sitting at Milton Keynes

		351 Silbury Boulevard Milton Keynes Buckinghamshire MK9 2DT
		01/08/2014

JUDGE HUGHES:

1. These applications concern AM, he was born on 26th June 2004, MM, born on 9th November 2005 and RYG, born on 16th September 2013. The welfare of all these children is my paramount consideration. They have been represented in these proceedings through their children's guardian, Sarah Norris, and by Ms. Edwards, a solicitor. It is, as I have said, their welfare that is at the forefront of the court's consideration in giving this judgment. The children's mother is KM. She has been represented by Ms. Diaz of counsel. The father of AM and MM is JM. He has parental responsibility for the children. He has been represented by Mr. Brown, who is on his way for the purposes of this judgment. He has not taken part in the hearing, given his understandable position in relation to the application of the special guardians and following a negative assessment of him and his partner. In short form he has not been put forward to care for the boys. He is not seeking immediate contact with them, but hopes, as I understand it, in the fullness of time that they will have contact with him if they want to in the future.
2. RYG's father is SB. He does not have parental responsibility for RYG. He has been notified of these proceedings and has not played a part. He is not in a position to care for RYG.
3. Mr. and Mrs. G are the maternal grandparents of the children. They have made an application for a special guardianship order in respect of AM and MM. They were joined at the proceedings in the April 2004. They had been represented by Ms. Fitzpatrick, a solicitor, who has made an appearance on the first day of this hearing and does not have funding to be present today. Mr. and Mrs. G are present in court to hear the court's judgment.
4. The local authority is represented by Ms. Wilkinson of counsel. It is their application for a care and placement order in relation to RYG and special guardianship orders to Mr. and Mrs. G in respect of AM and MM. That plan was supported by all parties, save and except the first respondent mother. Her position has been clarified in the course of these proceedings. She wishes all the children to be returned to her care. If that were not possible for one reason or another, she would support the making of a special guardianship order in favour of her parents in relation to AM and MM, but in any event would want to resume care of her youngest son, RYG.
5. It is necessary for the purposes of this case for me to spend a little time on the background as to those circumstances have led to the inception of the proceedings and why we are all here. I draw for that purpose on the local authority's helpful opening note. In doing so I make it plain that when any of the assertions that are contained in that note conflict with any subsequent findings that I make, of course my findings prevail.
6. The family have been known to social care for some time. Between 2006 and 2013 there were repeated referrals and assessments in relation to concerns about the mother's alcohol misuse, domestic violence and parenting. There had been ongoing concerns about AM in particular, presenting with numerous injuries whilst in mother's care. Mother has had a history of dependence on alcohol and prescription painkillers and RYG was born with withdrawal symptoms. There have been numerous reports made by neighbours, the school and ambulance crew of mother being under the influence. There were ongoing concerns noted by many professionals, including the school, that AM and MM regularly appeared grubby and smelled strongly of cigarette smoke.
7. In July 2012 a Team Around the Child was involved for six months giving the family support with routines, boundaries in the home and healthcare. The local authority was notified that the mother was pregnant in January 2013 and in March 2013 the children were placed on a children in need plan for five months to provide support. The mother appeared to engage well. However, professionals remained concerned that the situation appeared to deteriorate rather than improve. The school observed the children to be hungry often and noted that they were walking to school alone. This appeared to be because the mother's medication was making her lethargic. A taxi was subsequently arranged to bring the children to school. Another referral was made to the Bucks Floating Support Service in April 2013 to assist the mother with finances, but she did not engage.
8. Between June and August of that year social workers noticed that the mother was often not home for visits or did not answer the door or her phone. The children were made the subject of Child Protection Plans under the category of neglect on 7th August 2013. Concerns grew as the mother refused to act on the advice of medical professionals that she needed to be admitted to hospital to monitor high blood pressure and potential pre-eclampsia. She remained at home, putting the unborn baby at risk of harm. She also informed AM and MM that she and the unborn baby may die, which caused them much worry.
9. RYG was born on 13th September 2013. He suffered withdrawal symptoms due to the mother's misuse of painkillers during pregnancy and remained in hospital for several weeks. During this time the mother was advised to stay overnight at hospital, but she refused to do this. The mother since stated that she refused because she is scared of hospitals.
10. On 4th October 2013 it was noted by a member of staff at AM's school that he had sustained significant deep scratches to his face. AM said that they were caused by his brother MM. MM confirmed this when he was spoken to and that was consistent with a medical examination completed by Dr. Devi, paediatric consultant. The incident however was significant because it escalated concerns of the local authority. Daily monitoring was now in place with the support of the junior catch team and the school.
11. It was on 25th October that AM disclosed, initially at school, that he had been physically abused by his mother and MM by being hit with a rolling pin and made that disclosure initially to his aunt, RG, in the circumstances that I shall come to shortly, and to the social worker, Abida Bhatti in what I can only describe as less than satisfactory circumstances in relation to the rules that apply so far as disclosures from children are concerned, to members of staff, subsequently to police in an interview on 28th October 2014 and also to the doctor who examined him on 25th October. It is fair to say that AM has never retracted that disclosure and that is one of the issues that I have to determine today in relation to what he was saying and whether it was truthful or not and balance that account in relation to the mother's account that she did not physically abuse AM with a rolling pin. MM, I should also add, for the purpose of completeness, confirmed initially on 25th October that he was asked by his mother to physically abuse AM with a rolling pin, but not prepared to repeat that allegation to the police.
12. After that disclosure on 25th October it was agreed that there would be a joint social care and police investigation. We know after having heard the evidence over the last few days that AM and MM were medically examined. AM was spotted with two significant bruises, one on his left thigh and one on his lower arm. The doctor was of the view that the injuries were consistent with AM's explanation of being hit by a rolling pin the night before. The police took photographs in the normal way, and I have looked at those photographs. They are in the bundle.
13. On 25th October the children were placed in care. AM and MM were placed together and RYG was placed in a separate foster placement. In relation to that what I should is that having heard all the evidence, I am bound to find had AM and MM were placed foster in care contrary to assurances made to Mr. and Mrs. G, and they accepted those assurances in good faith. I find as a matter of fact that those assurances were made to Mr. and Mrs. G and I accept, as I shall presently make it plain, the evidence of RG in that respect.
14. On 28th October, as I have already said, AM was interviewed by police and repeated his disclosures. He did not know why his mother had assaulted him. He did not know why it was that MM had been asked to assault him, but said that his mother became angry for some unknown reason and apparently on AM's account at that time his cries aggravated his mother when he was being hit by MM, and she then followed him into his bedroom and proceeded to hit him with the same rolling pin. Of course, I know that is an aspect that is denied by the mother, and I shall deal with that presently.
15. Significantly, so far as background is concerned, I also rehearse, and I do not believe that it is in dispute, that AM was spoken to by Detective Constable Lucy Clark from the CAIU. AM said that his mother coached them as to how to behave when professionals were around, including responding to difficult questions with silence and sitting quietly if professionals came to the door as it would then appear no one was at home. He went on to say that he had been physically abused in the past. I know no findings are sought by the local authority specifically in relation to AM's allegation that he was hit with a wooden spoon or a hand or a shoe and reported other forms of punishment that he had to endure. For example, a jug of water being poured over his bed and then having to sleep in the hall. He also told police, and this is a matter of dispute which I come to make findings on in due course, that he was required to prepare his mother's medication each day, and he was able to list that medication with some precision and how it was prepared.
16. Care proceedings as a consequence of that lamentable history were issued on 19th November 2013, of course, the children having been in temporary care before that. The children were made the subject of interim care orders on 3rd December 2013. I should say that the picture that emerges in relation to these two little boys is that they were sad, unhappy, unkempt and neglected for a lot of the time. I say that because at other times that clearly was not the case, and I am anxious to accord positives to the mother's care where I can do for the purposes of balance and fairness.
17. There were a number of assessments in the public law proceedings, all of which we know about, but I rehearse them for the purposes of completeness. There is a recommendation in the final assessment of Mr. and Mrs. G that they cared for AM and MM, and it is also worth recording the mother has taken two overdoses, one on 28th October 2013 and another as recently as 1st June 2014. After that second overdose there was a section 34 order giving permission to the local authority to refuse contact to assess whether the mother was well enough continue. I rehearse that not to cause the mother distress, but to highlight something that has become apparent to me throughout the proceedings, acutely so in certain circumstances, that the mother is a very vulnerable woman and her vulnerability is part of the picture in relation to this case and that is a significant feature going forward in relation to the decision that I have ultimately had to make.
18. So far as contact is concerned, I think it is fair to record that mother has attended conscientiously and assiduously. I think there was only one contact that she missed because she was unwell, but concerns were raised regarding her emotional presentation in contact, and to paraphrase that, as best I can, the extent to which she was able to put her own feelings to one side for the benefit of children. It is quite clear from reading those contact notes, and I have read many examples, that mother became overwhelmed with her own emotional situation and obviously the children as a consequence , were exposed to that in circumstances where they need not have been.
19. The concerns continued in relation to the presentation of the home, and I know from the reading the guardian's report that a visit on 3rd June made it plain that matters in mother's flat were not satisfactory and not in any fit condition for any children to live in, although when cross-examined I do recall that many of those concerns would be capable of remedy with, what the guardian described as, a little bit of elbow grease and hard work.
20. There has been a multitude of proceedings in relation to the case. A great deal of time and judicial time and social work resource and expertise has been expended on this case. We know in relation to the assessment of JM that that was negative. I have already dealt with that. He understands that and he in his position today has effectively been to take a backseat and allow the applications to proceed so far as AM and MM are concerned, and he is to be given credit in relation to that
21. So far as mother is concerned, there was a detailed assessment by Julie Smith, a CAS assessment. I deal with Julie Smith's evidence a little later in the judgment. There was significantly, a CAS sibling assessment, that is of AM and MM. That is significant to this extent and it effects really how the case has been dealt with. Mr. Izabelle said that the high needs of each of the boys made it likely that if each of them were placed together, that is all three together, there would be a very high risk of placement break down, and it was recommended that AM and MM would be placed together and that RYG be placed on his own. He went on to recommend for those boys who are expressed to have high needs, unsurprisingly perhaps in view of what they have experienced, that there should be intervention from the CAMS, including family therapy and essential life story work.
22. There was also a psychological assessment by Graham Flatman . He was not called to give evidence because his evidence was not challenged, but I rehearse for the sake of completeness in relation to this judgment, ( and I am concerned that this judgment should be complete even though it means necessarily that it is a lengthy judgment) is that he concludes,

"In my opinion there is also clear psychological evidence of emotional and physical harm. It is likely from a reading of the documents that this has been compounded by KM not facing up to her apparent difficulties, not helping her boys to develop harmonious and reciprocal relationships, by being in denial about her and their difficulties and procuring their sympathy and support. It is likely that she infantilised MM to meet her own emotional needs. She has at times placed her needs above those of her children."

He goes on to say at the next paragraph,

"In my opinion these children have been neglected and have been subject to emotional and physical harm to a very significant level."

23. He too recommended life story work and therapy for these boys. It is right thereafter, and again for the sake of completeness, Mr. and Mrs. G were assessed. I do not need to repeat the outcome of that assessment or the detail of that assessment other than the outcome, which makes it plain that the recommendation was in the end positive so far as they are concerned. There is an SGO special guardianship support plan, proposed by the local authority to assist them and of great significance is the children have been designated Children In Need and that means additional support will be available to Mr. and Mrs. G, and I am pleased at the negotiations that have taken place behind the scenes which have been very helpful in relation to making them feel secure in pursuing their application for a special guardianship order. As a consequence of that order being made, and I shall come to that in due course, there are provisions in relation to contact, and the like, and for support for contact in relation to AM and MM.
24. I would like to spend a moment or two dealing with threshold. The threshold criteria has to be crossed in the order for an order to be made under the Children Act or indeed under the Adoption and Children Act subsequently. I have read the composite threshold that has been prepared by the local authority. I know, and I shall come to it, that some of the allegations are actively disputed by the mother, and she has been given an opportunity through cross-examination to challenge some of the assertions. She has challenged the assertions that she has physically assaulted AM with a rolling pin. She challenges the assertion that she instructed MM to do so, and she challenges the assertion that AM has been made to be responsible for preparing her medication.
25. It was with the mother's position firmly in mind that it was agreed by all that live evidence should be heard from the first allocated social worker to whom I have had already referred, Abida Bhatti, and the children's maternal aunt, RG. I deal with their evidence a little later in this judgment, but I make it plain by any yardstick leaving aside those matters threshold is crossed and the primary issue in this case is the dispute in relation to the care plan relating to where the children should live. It is overwhelmingly clear, however, that at the time that protective measures were taken, that is to say on 25th October 2013, that these children were all suffering or likely to suffer significant harm within the meaning of section 31 of the Children Act 1989.
26. I read the file statements in the case together with the references and the background documents to which I been taken, either by way of an invitation to read by reference to local authority's reading list or by reference to documents in live evidence. I have heard live evidence from the first allocated social worker, Abida Bhatti, RG, the children's aunt, Joy Vincent, a social work manager, and Julie Smith, the author of the CAS assessment.
27. The first live witness I heard from was Abida Bhatti. She is a senior social worker and in fact it was her statement that led to the inception of the application by Buckinghamshire County Council of care and placement orders as long ago as 19th November 2013. She records that the children had lived with their mother until 25th October in the circumstances in which I have already outlined. It was then that they were accommodated under section 20 of the Children Act following AM's disclosures. It is evident, not only from her statement, but also from her lengthy chronology, that the mother and children have been known to social care since 2006. I have already rehearsed by way of background to this judgment how those children presented, hungry, dirty, unkempt and notably distressed at school where their attendance has been recorded as being poor. There is little doubt that they have been significantly harmed as a consequence of the care of them by their mother who, as I have said, presents as a very vulnerable woman.
28. After RYG's birth on 16th September 2013 and on 28th October the mother was admitted to hospital. There was a suicide attempt or an overdose, however one wants to determine it, and a similar attempt, as we all know, was made as recently as June 2014. I should say this. I am very alive to this mother's vulnerability and very anxious in so far as it is possible in any judgment to ensure that what I may say in this judgment gives her no unnecessary pain or emotional distress. However, I am conscious that she disputes some key elements of the threshold and that position inevitably leads to findings that she might find difficult to hear if the evidence points that way to the required standard.
29. Of particular interest in relation to this social worker's evidence, was the unravelling of AM's disclosure in relation to the rolling pin. AM disclosing that, as we know at school on 25th October, in relation to an incident that he said took place on 24th October involving his younger brother MM and his mother. I should say that that disclosure is dealt with by this witness in very little detail in one or two paragraphs in her statement. I know that her evidence was subsequently amplified by reference to a case note, but it is perhaps worth rehearsing early on that the statement is woeful in terms of lack of detail. I say that because the genesis to that disclosure is somewhat more complicated and as I have said the full account occurs in the case note prepared some days later. That recounts in greater detail AM's disclosure at King's Wood school. However, neither that case note nor indeed Ms. Bhatti''s statement fully explain how matters came about, which she clarified only in oral evidence, and I have to say giving every allowance for the passage of time, which of course I do, that this witness' grasp of the detail was poor.
30. According to her evidence she met with the maternal aunt, RG, on 22nd October, who came to her office to talk about concerns in relation to the children. She, also, having been involved in taking AM for his medical examination in relation to the scratches on 4th October. It seems that RG brought with her a laptop containing pictures of the children's bruising. Of course none of that has emerged in the course of this hearing. In fact, that meeting according to RG took place on 23rd October and having seen and heard RG, I prefer her account as a more accurate historian. It seems that as a consequence it was arranged that there would be a meeting with AM at his school on 25th October and RG would attend as according to the social worker RG felt that AM would be more comfortable if she was there and able to speak the truth. It seems that this meeting was scheduled for 10 o'clock. The social worker was two hours late, according to RG, and, as I have said, I prefer her account. It was there that AM made disclosures about the rolling opinion assaults by his mother and MM and being required to prepare his mother' medication. It seemed that MM did not want to make any disclosure until after he had been reassured, but he also disclosed, according to this witness, that he was asked by his mother to physically abuse AM with a rolling pin.
31. I have read the school attendance note of what transpired and indeed the case note on several occasions, but of course neither that nor the social worker's evidence makes it plain as to the nature of the questions that were put to the two boys, as would be normal in relation to any ABE compliant interview. I note that there was a subsequent medical examination by Dr. Sawney . He saw AM, who was then nine years old, and gave a detailed disclosure in relation to that incident. That was, in any judgment, a deeply probative account. AM said that he was playing with one-month-old RYG, and he heard his mother call MM to get a rolling pin and hit him. According to AM at that stage and his disclosure to the doctor MM went ahead and did hit him on the leg and when AM started to scream mother took the rolling pin from MM and started hitting him again. He made other disclosures to that doctor regarding treatment of him by his mother, including giving her night time tablets, and he was able to mention all the names of the tablets saying, "She just wants me to do slave work", during that conversation.
32. I mention for the sake of completeness MM's medical examination. He reported his mum getting angry with AM because of AM, according to MM, was bullying one-month-old baby RYG, but then he said he had forgotten what had happened and he had forgot whether it was himself or his mother having a rolling pin and he denied hitting AM. What emerged from the skilful cross-examination by Ms. Diaz, for the mother, is that there is nothing in the social worker's statement in relation to what in particular was discussed on 23rd October in any detail and perhaps most importantly any mention of what RG says in her statement that she spoke to AM. She asked for an opportunity to do so, and she spoke to AM before he made his disclosures on his own for five minutes and was then present during the disclosures.
33. In view of the pivotal part that RG played on 25th October it is more than unfortunate that a full account of what transpired on 23rd October and 25th October was not forthcoming. However, doing the best I can, I draw on the subsequent local authority case summary and that is perhaps the best account, although regrettably not contemporaneous. I am satisfied on the basis of the evidence I have heard that handwritten notes were taken at the time although they are now unavailable, and I am satisfied that those handwritten notes were used to prepare the case note. Ideally, in relation to all these situations as everybody knows every scrap of paper should be preserved and there should be a careful and proper note and in addition to that the interview with the child should be carefully planned in advance in relation as to who is going to ask what in what circumstances and that did not happen.
34. So far as what happened on that day is concerned, the social worker said that she recalled AM being brought by a teacher and running up to his aunt. She was then able to, when prompted, recall the private conversation between RG and her nephew, who was there, I should say, for a perfectly understandable and commendable reason to comfort and support AM and also on that occasion he also expressed the very clear wish to live with his aunt and maternal family.
35. So what emerged thus far was that leading questions clearly where put to AM outside by RG; not her fault. She is not to know that that was not the thing to do. She is well intentioned in relation to her desire to help AM. She and others at the school in the course of that interview, where no question and answer record appears to be adequately taken, leading questions again were put to him contrary to any guidance. This social worker was able to accept that leading questions were put to AM, and when he was asked in answer to a question about his wishes he said that if he had a wish he would like to go and live with his maternal grandmother, maternal grandfather and aunt RG. It is of course with the benefit of hindsight easy to be critical, but I am bound to say although I am entirely satisfied that AM did disclose being hit by MM and his mother with a rolling pin and made the disclosures that have been attributed to him by her some very poor practice was employed in relation to that particular exercise, which had not been properly prepared or thought about in advance. I have to take the evidence as I find it in relation to what AM said and look at matters in the round, which I do presently later in this judgment.
36. If more in relation to my concern were needed I need look no further than the evidence of RG. I have to say that I found RG to be an extremely impressive and articulate 21-year-old woman who clearly has had the best interest of her nephews at heart throughout this process. I found her to be an unvarnished witness as to truth when she gave her live evidence. I should perhaps first of all rehearse that she is the author of a Children Act statement made on 19th May and the author of a police statement made on 29th October 2013.
37. I deal with her latest statement first. She acknowledges that she has a bad relationship with her sister, the children's mother, and recalls that her parents struggled to manage the mother's behaviour, particularly her spiteful behaviour towards her. It would seem that the mother moved out when she was seven, and she acknowledged that she does not have a relationship with her as a result of this. She says however, "I would never say anything bad about her in front of the boys." Having seen her and heard her, I believe that to be true.
38. After balancing her accounts against other accounts and also the mother's account and the mother's evidence, which I have read and listened to, she became involved with the social worker following the scratches on AM's face on 4th October and would seem that it was she who took the children then for a check up. It is RG's case that following that, in other words her taking the children for examination, the mother denied her any opportunity to see AM and MM for two weeks, and she was worried about that, which is why she went to see the social worker on 23rd October. She was able to discuss the range of concerns that she had regarding unexplained bruises on AM and the boys being hungry amongst other things. In her statement she is transparent, as indeed she was in her police statement, that she did have an opportunity of having a word with AM on his own at the pre-arranged meeting on 25th October.
39. By way of background on 23rd October the social worker had been urging her to go to the police, and she did not want to at that time because she was very clear that she wanted to come to the school to support AM in any disclosures that he wanted to make, particularly as it seems that AM was scared of social workers because he had been told by his mother, according to this witness, that if he spoke to social workers with would be taken away. It seems that in a private meeting with AM she was able to reassure him that he was not going to be hurt again. It would seem according to her police statement the social worker had told her that the boys could stay with her and her parents. She, therefore, told AM, "That Abida had said they could both stay with us if they told the truth."
40. She was quite properly challenged in relation to this aspect by the mother's counsel and the fact that her account of what transpired in her private meeting with AM on 25th October in her Children Act statement did not correspond precisely with what she had written in her police statement. There were several different aspects of detail, but for the avoidance of doubt, I accept this witness' general assertion that her police statement was probably more accurate, it having been made a comparatively short time after 25th October. She omitted to say in that statement that she asked AM why was sad and the statement contains leading questions of AM, all of which is completely understandable in a layperson, particularly a relative. She also said to AM that if he wanted the hurting to stop he had to tell and told him that he would not be living with his mother. She was challenged that in effect that that would give AM an inducement to make the disclosure, he having said he wanted to live with her and his grandparents. To this I am bound to say I think she gave a very apt reply that we should not underestimate the huge amount of love that AM had for his mother, and she believes that it would not have influenced what he said just what he felt about saying it. I found this to be a compelling observation by this young woman and it has the resonance of truth.
41. She accepts that she went into more detail in her live evidence than she had perhaps done in either of her statements, but I am wholly persuaded that she at no time suggested to AM what he should say and her questions came about as a consequence of AM having told her in the past that his mother had hit him with a wooden spoon or, "stick him ". Incidentally, while I deal with that, her evidence and for the again for the sake of completeness, she goes into the some detail in her police statement in relation to the background of AM disclosing his bruises in the past, explaining that she had about four or five conversations in three years with AM about bruises and about being hit with a spoon. It is perhaps a measure of her fairness and balance that she was able to say that AM said that a lot of the bruises were accidental or that he had fallen over or MM had done it. It is a particularly poignant feature of this evidence in terms of what she reported AM had said to her that if she mentioned the subject of bruises too much AM would seem scared that social services would take him away and although she had conversations with her parents about what AM had said he would clam up in front of them. She said she had not heard any allegations about the wooden spoon for nine months or so and thought this coincided roughly with within children were put on the at risk register.
42. By way of summary let me say this. I found her to be a balanced young woman with the best interests of her nephews at heart. The lack of professionalism in relation to eliciting AM's disclosures should not be laid at her door or indeed at AM's in balancing the evidence as to whether he should be believed. I am fully persuaded that she would not denigrate or run down her sister should AM and MM be placed with her parents. She is clearly sensible of the damage that it would do them. I am also entirely persuaded that she did not put words in to AM's mouth or suggest that he would say things that are untrue.
43. Julie Smith is the social worker employed by the Buckinghamshire County Council Court Assessment Service, I have referred to that previously as CAS, and author of a comprehensive report. That report is dated 28th February 2014. It is a comprehensive assessment. It began in December 2013, and she set out in the preamble to the report all the meetings that she has had with the mother and with family members. There is has been no suggestion that her report has been anything less than thorough in relation to the mother in February 2014. Her conclusions are set out in the early part of her report. She records that the mother is desperately seeking the return of her children and is sometimes overwhelmed with emotional loss. She reports that she has seen warm and loving exchanges of affection between mother and her sons. I should say the same is evident from some of the contact notes which I have read. However, she recalls, "Very real concerns about mother's capacity to parent her children safely through to adulthood. The mother greets questions about her chronic and excessive use of alcohol and medication with swift denial and there are concerns about her honesty in relation to additional difficulties." She further records the inability of the mother to reflect upon the impact her parenting has had upon her children. Crucially she records, "In my view it is too risky for her to disclose what her children have experienced in her care. If she does disclose, she risks losing the care of her children. It is a safer position for her to think forwards only and deny much of what has gone before." In short form, therefore, she identifies the mother's lack of capacity, her chronic and complex needs and the fact that any improvements in her ability to parent will not be made and sustained within the children's time scales.
44. In relation to the issue regarding the mother's historical addiction problems and indeed her honesty, she has been told during the course of the assessment that the mother had stopped consuming alcohol and had been abstinent since the time the children were removed. Further, that she was only taking prescribed co-codamol, having stopped using tramadol. However, mother's own June statement indicates continued or low limited use of alcohol, and we all know from the drugs test there is a rise in codeine which means either to this witness that the mother has not been honest to her or has resumed use subsequently.
45. Again of extreme importance in relation to her written evidence, she identified what she describes as two order changes. The first order change she concedes may have taken place in relation to alcohol and medication although I am bound to say that that would seem not to be the case in my judgment following the recent drugs test. I am however satisfied that the mother has taken steps to drastically reduce her alcohol intake. As a consequence, as I recall in evidence she told to me that she felt a lot better for it. She does identify a second order change, "As a reorganisation of what the problem means and the dynamics around it." This has not happened and the essential change in the mother's thinking and belief system, which she describes as a complex and challenging process, given the mother's difficulties, has yet to happen.
46. She identified for the mother that she needed today contact Oasis, that is for alcohol and drug services, Healthy Minds for psychological services and Women's Aid in relation to her previous history of domestic violence. There is no evidence of any determined engagement in relation to any of those organisations which reinforces her own concerns regarding the mother's ability to care. When cross-examined by mother's counsel she was able to acknowledge that the mother's concession to threshold comprised in the composite threshold document amounted to progress, albeit agreed on the first day of the hearing. She confirmed that the mother had been co-operative in the assessment, which had been more difficult for her as she was experiencing a difficult time dealing with the removal of her children. She accepted that the mother was beginning, "To open her thinking", and reduced her use of tramadol or amitriptyline and accepts her previous dependence on prescription painkillers. She shared a concern when put to her by mother's counsel that the mother had been able to access all these drugs in that particular configuration together through her GP and although she was able to accord some positives in relation to the mother's present situation and that by accepting that she has harmed her children, it was affirmation of a change, but she still said there was a long way to go.
47. She agreed that her observations in relation to any culpability that the mother may have had in relation to the rolling pin allegation was not for her to decide and in my judgment she certainly trespassed a little into forming a view so far as that is concerned and was able to accept that the mother may well have felt pre-judged. She went on to say and this is a significant feature in relation to the mother's case, as she has put it before the court, that the mother did not appear to have positive relationships with any of the professionals, which in her view went to whether the mother was able to manage her ability to take responsibility for her own actions. In short form she said the mother viewed herself as a victim and that is why she felt that the mother would benefit from a therapeutic service which of course we know she failed to follow through.
48. She was also able, when according positives, to record that there had been recent positives in contact in relation to mother's demeanour in contact and that too was a step forward. In the event that RYG was to be returned to the mother's care, and she was asked to address this on a hypothetical basis, she suggested a range of support that would benefit the mother including a service called Reconnect to improve her emotional connection to her children. Her assessment, however, in relation to the mother was negative in relation to resuming care and what is especially significant is her assessment that the mother did not demonstrate an ability to reflect upon the impact her parenting had on the children being unwilling to think about the emotional and physical harm her sons experienced while in her care. Her concerns about mother's capacity to parent the children into adulthood were in my judgment well made out as indeed was her observation that if the children were returned to mother's care they would be exposed to the risks already outlined. She said, "KM appears to have needs that are chronic and complex, needs that are yet to be assessed by more than one professional service. Any improvements in her ability to parent will not be made and sustained within the children's time scales."
49. Joy Vincent is the team manager for the social work team and it fell to her to prepare an addendum SGO report, and I know the contents of that report have subsequently been agreed with Mr. and Mrs. G. She is also the author of a short statement in relation to setting all the local authority's thinking so far as contact arrangements were concerned in the event of AM and MM being placed with their maternal grandparents, which she put in the range of between four and six times a year, observing as she did when she gave her live evidence that six times a year would roughly correspond to school holidays indicating, however, that the priority for her was for the children to have time to settle with their grandparents. She explained that they would have a special social worker being children in need and the local authority would supervise contact and that supervision provision would be reviewed in July 2015. She told the court when being asked about contact that after 23rd July contact she had been told by the foster carer that MM was visibly distressed and later wet the bed and the supervisor had reported to the foster that the mother's physical presentation was poor on that occasion.
50. It was a matter for some concern, as I read and heard her evidence, given that her role was to speak to the all the local authority evidence, that in the statement of the social worker, Thomas Farncombe , the analysis required by the guidelines set out in the judgement Re B-S (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 1146 was somewhat deficit in that there did not appear to be any proper analysis in relation to the potential impact to RYG of adoption in terms of loss of his birth family or indeed the analysis under 2002 Adoption and Children Act in relation to the family impact and the loss of a natural family to any child.
51. It was for that reason that I directed an overnight statement by Ms. Vincent to deal with these defects, including an analysis of the prospect of returning RYG to the care of the mother. In the event the court decided that it would be appropriate. She did set out in the same way as Ms. Smith had done what support would be available. But I am bound to say that given the mother's lack of engagement with those agencies that had been recommended to her, I prefer Julie Smith's analysis of her lack of capacity to care for these children and effect change within their timescale.
52. It was suggested again with commendable competence by Ms. Diaz that the jointly appointed expert in the case, Dr. Flatman, in addition to observing that the issue of contact was a complex one in this case, suggested that contact of at least once a month with a family placement. I should say that there was very little analysis in the local authority's written evidence as to why between four to six times a year was appropriate, but I fully accept and understand the boys need to settle. I accept the principle that the amount of contact should be reviewed frequently and should be geared to the boy's needs. It is imperative, however, that these boys who clearly love their mother should gain the message that the care throughout their childhood will be given by their grandparents if indeed a special guardianship order is made and, therefore, I find no difficulty in approving a care plan that reduces contact.
53. I observe that family relationships are appalling at the present time. It is important that these children do not feel conflicted, but it is not possible for me to be prescriptive so far as contact is concerned, save and except that it should be reviewed frequently and informed by the children's emotional needs and I deal with that a little later on.
54. The time came for the mother to give evidence in relation to the case. KM is the mother of all these children, and she desperately wants them to return to her care. She is the author of two Children Act statements in the bundle which I have read and a lengthy handwritten letter which I should say and record is written from the heart. In it she expresses remorse for things that have happened in the past and says that she would give everything to turn the clock back and change things if she could. The day that the boys were taken into care was the worst day of her life, and I know that there has been a psychological impact in relation to her so far as her overdosing on two occasions. She explains in that powerful letter how her addiction to pain relieving drugs came about, namely due to severe arthritic pain in her hips. By way of summary, therefore, acknowledging some of the short comings in relation to her parenting and how she would never allow matters to get to the same state again if the boys return to her care. She pleads to be given a chance to prove that she can be a good mum and put her mistakes right. She went into the witness box and gave oral evidence acknowledging her mistakes and reaffirming that she would not want to put her children through that again. I should of course record that it is difficult for any mother in these circumstance to give live evidence, and she did so with calm and commendable courage in circumstances where she was clearly much distressed.
55. Her first position is that she would like all the children returned. If that was not possible, then AM and MM to go to her parents under an SGO. She still maintained the hope that she could look after RYG. Her present position is that she says that she only drinks occasionally. She feels healthier, feels a better person and only takes co-codamol and some diabetic medication, she having been diagnosed with diabetes some four or five week ago. She said that she had a great fear for AM's wellbeing if RYG was adopted, saying that it would be devastating for him as he is so close to RYG. She clearly feels that contact at four to six times a year is not sufficient and fears that it would make her children feel hurt, and they would worry about her. Obviously, and I make no criticism of her in relation to this, as any mother would in her position, she wants as much contact as possible. But in effect she adopts from the evidence Dr. Flatman's recommendation, saying that there will be a benefit to the children of being in routine of once a month, knowing they could see her, being reassured that she was all right.
56. By the time she came to give her oral evidence the composite threshold except for the three areas that I have identified was accepted. I give her credit for that and that to an extent it is part of the steps that she has taken, albeit small steps I would say, at this particular stage. She vehemently denies hitting AM with a rolling pin. Her account was she was in the kitchen, I think making pastry. She discovered the rolling pin was missing from it normal place, and she saw MM hitting AM with the rolling pin. She grabbed the rolling pin, ran into the bedroom after AM, who was upset, showing him the rolling-and saying, "Mummy is not going to hurt you." AM's account, therefore, according to her is not true and neither is his account in relation to her prescription drugs. She attributes AM's false stories to her sister RG who in effect she said coached AM. She revealed for the first time in court that AM had told her in a whisper at a contact session that RG had made him say it. I should say that that disclosure at this stage is of doubtful veracity emerging as it did in live evidence. However, her difficulties lie in the fact that AM has maintained his account to a number of professionals and there is a great deal of consistent contextual detail in relation to each of his accounts to all the professionals, the details of which I have rehearsed earlier in this judgment. Additionally if it is indeed the case that AM made a false allegation in order to stay with RG and the maternal family, he would have been frustrated in that aim by the local authority, as he was put into foster care where he has maintained the same story, including a recent affirmation to the guardian. I shall come to that affirmation when I deal with the guardian's evidence.
57. As to the suggestion that MM also made a supportive disclosure at school on 25th October her view is that MM had said that she had told him to hit AM to get himself out of trouble for hitting AM himself with a rolling pin. She was candid enough, and once again she need to be given credit for this, that there has been times in the past where she has encouraged children to lie about their bruises, as she was scared that they would be taken away by social services. This may have happened, she said, on five or six occasions. As to AM preparing her medication and knowing the names of her drugs, she said he would have known the names by accompanying her to the doctors when she was prescribed the drugs and also to the chemist when she picked them up and also would have seen her prepare the drugs in the microwave in the way that AM has described. As to AM's disclosure to the GP that he was made to do slave work, she accepts that she did give the boys small jobs to do. For example, one of AM's jobs was to wind up the hoover cable after it had been used. That in my judgment is a far cry from the indication given by AM. That in no sense could be described as slave work although it is not impossible for the purposes of this judgment for me to plumb as to why AM said it, save and except that it is a disturbing and significant thing for any nine-year-old, now 10-year-old boy, to say regarding treatment of him at home by his mother. Obviously I have balanced the mother's account with AM's account and the numerous disclosures he has made to the police. I do not accept, and I shall come to this again presently, that AM could have maintained so consistent a lie in relation to his allegations or provided so much contextual detail.
58. Sarah Norris is the guardian in this case, and she has filed two reports, one filed during the course of the proceedings by way of an addendum. She did the addendum I should make it plain in response to a request from the court to complete a comprehensive analysis of the welfare checklist under the 2002 Act in so far as it related to the proposed replacement order in relation to RYG. Her position is that she supports the local authority in its applications. Turning to her original report, it contained an analysis of the mother's parenting capacity to meet her children's needs. She prayed in aid mother's lack of insight as recorded by the CAS team; her overemotional presentation in contact and its consequent impact on AM and MM; the condition of the mother's accommodation, which she described as being poor as recently as 3rd June, and mother's lack of help in relation to her psychological addiction problem. I should say perhaps mother's lack of self help. She concludes that she does not see evidence of mother having made sufficient changes and progress within the proceedings to be able to provide any of the boys with the type of care they require now or in the future. Significantly in preparation for her report, she did see AM and MM. AM was clear he wanted to live with the proposed special guardians. MM was confused in his discussions and started to become upset and seemed relieved when it was suggested to him that was ' okay ' for the judge to make the decision. Significantly in the context of the findings sought AM reiterated in a private conversation with the guardian and the foster carers that he did not want to live with his mother, as he did not want to be hit and it had really hurt when his mother hit him with a rolling pin and he did not think was it right. He said he did not want to be smelly again. He likes being clean. Of course, I am alive to the possibility that AM merely was repeating a lie about the rolling pin in the hope that it would bolster his case not to return to his mother, particularly as the conversation with the guardian centred about the his future wishes and feelings, but I accept the guardian's oral evidence when in fact the main emphasis of AM's disclosure to her was that he did not like to be hurt and did not want to be hurt begun. She clarified in oral evidence that she saw little ability in the mother to recognise what precisely needed to change and to continue to be concerned that the mother had not engaged with those agencies that had been identified to help her. When she prepared her addendum report specifically in relation to RYG she was clearly aware, as indeed is the court, of the balancing exercise to be undertaken by the court and the potential losses to RYG and indeed his siblings in relation to a loss of family relationship if he was adopted, particularly in relation to RYG's sense of loss and confusion in the future over his identity. However, she recorded that was there no kinship placement available for RYG and her evidence which I accept clearly rules the mother out.
59. In relation to future contact, she agreed that the way forward in relation to AM and MM and indeed RYG was centred in flexibility. It was important that there was a flexible plan in relation to AM and RYG to be steered, in my judgment, by the proposed special guardians, but also in relation to RYG and the potential for inter sibling contact. I was interested in her evidence to the extent which she put the view forward that inter sibling contact, which I have to say I think is very important, could be promoted by the imaginative use of some media now available in terms of the use of videos and the like, which would not compromise RYG's security of placement, but would nevertheless give the boys the opportunity of growing up in the knowledge of one another.
60. In terms of the positives, I am entirely persuaded that when cross-examined she was able to accord the positives. Mother met RYG's needs in contact. There was no difficulty about that. She has attended his hospital appointments and so far as AM and MM was concerned she was able to agree that according to the doctors at that time their condition could generally be described as good. I draw from that incidentally that was there were undoubtedly times when these boys have received good enough parenting, but I am afraid my overall view is that deficits outweigh the positives in relation to the experiences that they have suffered and as a consequence they are now two boys, MM and AM, with high needs as a consequence of the things that have happened to them.
61. I was also struck by the guardian's evidence and the information that she gave particularly in relation to Mr. and Mr. G, that they were alive to promoting positive contact. I also agree with her that the mother would need to reflect positively about AM and MM's placement and not return to emotional behaviour and contact in their presence. The guardian agreed that if all was positive, then there was nothing to stop positive going forward, again I reiterate this, under the watchful eye of the proposed special guardians. I found her evidence to be balanced and fair and her recommendations well grounded in her analysis and particularly child centred.
62. I mention as I must do for the purposes of this very complete judgment because it forms a template for these boys, all of them and the future, so far as when they come back to reflect on their lives, that I should reiterate some propositions of law. I apologise to the lay parties in court if this seems some what long winded but it is essential. First of all, I remind myself what Hale LJ (as she then was) said in Re C and B (Children) (Care order: Future harm), [2000] 2 FCR 614 at paragraph 3:

"Under article 8 of the Convention both the children and the parents have the right to respect for their family and private life. If the state is to interfere with that there are three requirements: First, that it be in accordance with the law; secondly, that it be for a
legitimate aim (in this case the protection of the
welfare and interests of the children); and thirdly, that
it be 'necessary in a democratic society'."

63. I have firmly in mind that under normal circumstances the best person to bring up a child is a natural parent and the powerful remarks by Hedley J in Re L (A Child) (Care: Threshold Criteria), [2007] 1 FLR 2050 and the toleration that society must have to the very diverse standards of parenting, including the eccentric, the barely adequate and the inconsistent. I also adopt and agree the propositions advanced in the Re MA (Care Threshold) [2010] 1 FLR CA 433 that the significant harm that I should have regard to must be sufficiently high to justify the momentous step of taking children away from their parents and the risk must be an unacceptable one. I have been referred by mother's counsel in her written closing submissions, all of which incidentally I have read with care, and once again I commend Ms. Diaz for her careful representation of the mother in these difficult circumstances, the decision in Re B-S (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 1146 and the guidance from the President in relation to the need for proper evidence to be before the court. In that judgment Sir James Munby, President of the Family Division at paragraph 22 makes reference to an earlier Supreme Court decision in ReB, and he said that the language used in ReB 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 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, and they are the most extreme option, a last resort when all else fails and to be made only in exceptional circumstances and where motivated by overriding requirements pertaining to the child's welfare. In short, I say again, where nothing else will do.
64. I keep of course all those legal considerations firmly in mind. My judicial task is clear. First of all, I must establish that there is proper evidence from the local authority and the children's guardian which addresses all the realistically possible options for the children and the necessary analysis. In my judgment that evidence is before the court, having arrived by a combination of written, oral and expert evidence, including of course evidence from the mother herself. Having reviewed that evidence, it is my task to ensure that this judgment grapples with the competing factors and contains adequate reasons. I have clearly in mind that my task is to evaluate all the competing options and undertake a global, holistic and multifaceted evaluation of each child's welfare which considers all the negatives and positives. I remind myself in relation to disputed facts that the burden of proof is the balance of probabilities and the responsibility of proving such facts lies on the local authority.
65. I return again to the three disputed aspects of the composite threshold document relating to (a) whether AM was hit by his mother with a rolling pin on 24th October; (b), whether she encouraged MM to hit AM and (c) whether AM had to prepare his mother's medication. I remind myself again the mother vehemently denies these allegations. It is of course accepted that MM hit AM with a rolling pin and the mother's case is that she intervened for AM's benefit. I have balanced her recorded accounts with AM's disclosure. What is striking is that he has maintained a broadly consistent account containing a high level of contextual detail to RG, the social worker, the school, the police and subsequently to the guardian, notwithstanding the manner in which that disclosure came to light. I believe his account to be true on the balance of probabilities, and I reject any notion that this accusation was maliciously injected into his mind by RG and that he was induced to make these disclosures to live with his grandparents. I am also prepared to accept that MM disclosed briefly to the social worker that he been told to hit AM by his mother, but I am not so sure the requisite standard that is right despite AM's disclosures. I was struck that AM maintained his disclosure of being hit by his mother to police, but when it came to MM being told to him he said this, "MM hit me because mum asked him to. I was not there so I don't know." I bear in mind of course that AM was being questioned by the police, and he would have understood that that was a serious issue. In my judgment he made a mistaken assumption that MM had been told to hit him. I do, however, find that his mother hit him, but the evidence is not sufficient to make a finding that she told MM to hit him.
66. So far as the medication is concerned, I accept AM's account that he prepared his mother's medication, but there is very little evidence as to the frequency and duration of time over which he was expected to do this. I find on the balance of probabilities he was from time to time required to do this and his detailed knowledge of what was required is compelling and goes far and above what he would have learnt by going to the doctor's or attending the chemist. In making these findings, I have of course weighed the evidence and applied the standard of proof as the simple balance of probabilities. Irrespective of those findings, and as I have indicated, threshold as been in fact overwhelmingly crossed, but the court has necessarily been occupied with these discrete findings because in any view and certainly in my judgment AM is entitled to a judgment on this issue. AM and MM have been subjected to an appalling regime of neglectful parenting for many years and from time to time presented as sad, unkempt, neglected and dirty children who were often hungry. In doing so there is little doubt that their emotional welfare has been adversely affected, and I do record that the harm that they have been subjected to is significant. In fact, so significant that they cannot in any circumstances be returned to the care of their mother.
67. Of course I have balanced the positives. KM loves all her children, but her complex issues have obstructed and frustrated her skills and responsibilities as a parent and as a consequence her children have suffered. I am prepared to accept that there are numerous examples of tender and loving and interaction between the children and their mother, as evidenced by the contact notes and significantly when MM and AM were examined on 25th October they appeared that time to be clean and healthy, but of course there is a wealth of evidence to suggest that this was not so on numerous other occasions over many years.
68. I will deal, first of all, with AM and MM and balance the mother's understandable wish for their return to their care with that application made by the special guardians. In doing so I apply the provisions of welfare checklist under the Children Act 1989. It is not necessary for the purposes of this judgment for me to rehearse each and every part of that checklist, but I keep it firmly in mind. I have considered the report the social worker. I have to balance in looking at the evidential canvass these children's physical, emotional and educational needs. The harm that they have suffered or at risk of suffering and crucial in this case the capability of his parents or any other person in relation to whom the court considers to be relevant in meeting their needs. Of course, I recognise these children love their mother and may from time to time want to be with her, but the last three years in particular have shown as encapsulated in the stark nature of the threshold document that she does not have the capability of meeting their needs and keeping them free from physical and emotional neglect. I balance that position against the position of the special guardians. They emerge with credit from the assessment, and I am persuaded that they are alive to the grave difficulties imposed on them by caring for these two troubled boys and will show their grandsons the necessary commitment, assisted as I know they will be, by the very comprehensive package of support from the local authority and the fact that these children have been designated children in need.
69. Keeping as my compass the welfare checklist, I find that the mother is not capable of meeting these children's welfare needs, and they have suffered serious harm and neglect. Their welfare is my paramount consideration and I, therefore, make a special guardianship order in relation to each of them in favour of the maternal grandparents.
70. I go on to deal with RYG's case. That requires separate and careful consideration. My first task is to consider whether or not to make a care order. Once again I have had to have regard to the welfare checklist. Under section 1(3) of the Children Act the same considerations apply to RYG, as I have found in relation to his brothers and it will be evident from the earlier part of this judgment that I find that the risk is just too great that these needs will not be met in a developing child and that he too will be neglected. The care plan I know is for adoption. I have of course considered the impact of section 1(3)(c) as to the likely effect on him, that is to say RYG, in relation to any change of circumstances in his particular case not being brought up by an actual parent, but that has to be balanced against the risk of harm that I have identified. There have been years of neglect in relation to this case so far as his half siblings are concerned. The mother has not taken up with any degree of commitment any of the initiatives suggested to her, even her concessions as to threshold, although thoroughly creditworthy, came at the 11th hour, when the evidence has always been overwhelming.
71. The consequence of RYG not being brought up by his mother has to be balanced against the risk of harm. In fact, in particular in relation to his case this has required judicial evaluation of future risk given the established facts which I have found and which are summarised in the threshold. In my judgment, the risk of harm is significant and just too great and the mother presently does not have the capacity to provide good enough care notwithstanding the small steps that she has made. It cannot be right for RYG to wait for her to make the change. There is no alternative in this case, but to make a care order. Were I return RYG to his mother it would be against the background of an unacceptably high level of risk and no doubt against a background of serious of interim care orders to monitor rehabilitation plan in respect of which the prognosis must be very poor indeed.
72. That set of circumstances has recently been considered by the President in case Re S (A Child) D013C00782 and the set of circumstances that the court haS to have regard to in relation to considering putting off the decision against the background of the prospect of rehabilitation. The general approach was that there must be a robust and realistic appraisal at the outset of what is possible within the child's time scale and an equally robust and realistic ongoing appraisal on whether what is needed to be achieved is always or is not within the child's time scale. In that judgment the President poses three questions, and I pose them to myself for the purposes of this judgment, which I must do, for the purposes of judicial evaluation, adoption being so draconian an order. The three questions are as follows. One, is there some solid evidence based reason to believe that the mother is committed to making the necessary changes? I believe that she is genuine when she says she wants to make the changes, but she was signposted to various organisations as long ago as January and for one reason or another has not engaged meaningfully with any of them. Two, is there some solid based reason to believe that the mother would be able to maintain the commitment? The answer to that is that the evidence is sadly lacking. A legion of help has been invested in the past. The mother has failed to maintain progress, albeit against the background of her addiction problem. Three, is there any reason to believe that the parent would be able to make the necessary changes within the child's timescale? In my judgment, the mother has indeed made small steps. She has reduced her drinking and her dependence on some painkilling drugs, but her needs are extremely complex and rooted in her personality difficulties and complex history, and she has not even commenced therapy. RYG needs a decision on his future now. Accordingly in relation to those observations I make a care order. I approve the care plan for adoption.
73. I go on to consider the placement application. In doing so I have considered the guardian's helpful analysis and that helpful addendum submitted during the course of the proceedings. That specifically addresses the welfare checklist under the 2002 Act. I was critical during the hearing of the local authority who had not addressed that properly in their evidence. I remind the local authority for the avoidance of doubt that it is their function to do so and the social worker in this case should be sharply reminded of that obligation. As it happens, I now have the necessary evidence from the guardian.
74. I make a number of observations about RYG. He was born a particularly needy child with withdrawal symptoms. He has been a fractious baby in his early months and the extent to which his development will be affected is still unknown. Central to the consideration of that checklist is the loss to him of natural family and by that I include not only his mother, his father but also his half siblings and RYG risks certainly not only the loss of that relationship and also that of his maternal grandparents. There are material losses in relation to any child, any human being, as a consequence of losing natural family. Sadly, and I make no criticism of the maternal grandparents, they are not able to care for RYG, and I say, I hope without any contradiction at all, they will have their hands full with AM and MM.
75. Keeping the checklist firmly in mind, RYG has the need for stability throughout his childhood. I have already spent a great deal of time in this judgment identifying the risk of harm. He has no relatives that can care for him. Of course, I am alive to the risk of emotional difficulties later in life when he may struggle with a sense of identity. I am fully persuaded that the present and future risks outweigh that consideration after having balanced appropriately and the risks are just too great in RYG returning to his mother. I am hopeful and this is why I am at pains to set it out in this judgment that he will with the good offices of adopters maintain a relationship with his siblings and the maternal grandparents. I urge the local authority to carefully consider how this can be done in an imaginative way. I cannot make a placement order without parental consent. I have little doubt that mother loves RYG as indeed she loves all her boys whatever identified shortcomings. It is important that all these children are brought up in the knowledge that that is the case. I have read the statement of facts in support of an application to dispense with consent on welfare grounds, and I find the facts set out in that statement to be well established to the requisite standard. I dispense with the mother's consent because RYG's welfare requests that I do. In due course of time all these boys will know that their mother wanted them, fought for them, and I hope by reason of the detailed analysis set out in this judgment they will understand that the court found that that was not in their best interests. I am fully satisfied in RYG's case that in making the placement order that nothing else will do.
76. In completing this judgment, but I would like to say two final words. First of all, about the contact. In relation to AM and MM it is my hope that over the passage of the time relationships can be rebuilt within the maternal family with a beneficial impact on contact between the boys and their mother. However, that is to be predicated by two observations. First of all, it must be consistent with the boy's emotional welfare needs and certainly they need to time settle. Secondly, there must be a clear understanding, if you like a recognition, on the part of the mother that she will not be resuming their care because mixed messages to these children has the potential of undermining the placement and causing them harm. It is of course a matter for subsequent review.
77. Secondly and finally I say this to the mother. It is a pity that she is not in court, but I note that she became overwhelmed and upset, but will she have an opportunity in considering this in the transcript that will be made available to her. I was grateful to her for writing a personal letter. I read every word with care, but she must understand that I make decisions based on the welfare of the children. They are the centre of this case. I respect and recognise the great love that she has for her children. All the witnesses have attested to it. I hope that she will not consider it out of place in me to urge her to take the support that she will now be offered and continue to take the steps that she has started to take for her own health and rehabilitation. She has gone into the witness box and fought for her children. She can do nothing more at this stage.
    
78. I make Orders for SGO to Mr and Mrs G ; I have already dealt with for AM and MM. Care and placement orders in relation to RYG. Threshold criteria the composite to be annexed to any order. I will you all an opportunity to reflect and come back if there are any applications .
- - -- - - - - - - -