England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges)

IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN ACT 1989
AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION AND CHILDREN ACT 2002
AND IN THE MATTER OF X, Y AND Z (Children)

		5th May 2015

Introduction

1. These proceedings concern the welfare of three children:- X born in January 2010 and who is therefore now 5 years 3 months of age; Y born in May 2012 aged 2 years 11 months; and Z born in June 2013 aged 1 year 11 months. The children have been represented at this hearing by Ms Sally Hibbert, who in turn takes her instructions from the Children's Guardian, Ms Felicity Berryman.
2. The parents of all three children are Ms W. and Mr T. Ms W. has been represented at this hearing by Mrs Wrottesley. I may refer to Ms W. hereafter as "the mother". Mr T. has Parental Responsibility for his children and has been represented at this hearing by Mr Syed. I may refer to Mr T. hereafter as 'the father'.
3. The local authority in this case is Rotherham MBC. It is represented in these proceedings by Ms Stanistreet. I would like to thank all four advocates for their help and assistance in the conduct of this case.
4. The local authority seeks care and placement orders in respect of Y and Z, and seeks to adjourn the proceedings in respect of X whilst the placement of X with a maternal aunt, (MA), is tested out. The assessment of MA as a carer for X has been positive in outcome but steps to progress this plan are yet to be made. The local authority is undertaking a 16 week assessment of MA as an approved foster carer and that is yet to conclude. The court has been provided with a Plan of Introductions and an Assessment Plan for X and MA dated 24^th April 2015 and signed on the 27^th April. It sets out what the arrangements for introductions will be, including any reduction in contact between X and her parents and forms part of her interim care plan. The parents must bear some responsibility for this delay in planning for X because despite the court directing the parents to provide details of any potential alternative carers by the 15^th December 2014, and later amended to the 22^nd December, they did not put forward MA until February 2015.
5. The plans for the children are opposed by the mother. Ms W. seeks the return of any of her children to her care. The mother accepts the demands of all three children are such that she could not care for all three together and that she will need support to care for two. If the court were to place the youngest two children with the mother she would support the plan for X to be placed with MA. In the alternative, if she cannot care for any child, she would wish for Y and Z to be cared for by the maternal grandmother, (MGM).
6. The maternal grandmother is not a party to the proceedings but gave evidence on behalf of the mother and invites the court to consider placing the youngest two children in her care. The parents and the MGM accept that this would need to follow a further period of assessment of her ability to care for Y and Z by undertaking a further independent assessment over a six - seven week period. The viability assessment of MGM carried out by the local authority is negative.
7. The parents present at this hearing having separated and both are with new partners. The father has cognitive limitations as set out in the report of the psychologist Galen Ives dated 12.01.2015 at E45. The father accepts he is not in a position to provide care for any of his daughters on his own. In his second statement he details the possibility of him being assessed further as a joint carer with his new partner, with whom he has resided for the last two weeks, in Leeds. In the alternative, he supports the mother's request to care for the children, and/or their placement with members of the extended family. The parents are keen for the girls to grow up with direct knowledge of each other and would prefer a long-term foster placement where this could be facilitated to adoption. It is part of their case that adoption is not proportionate and fails to give appropriate weight to the importance of the girls' ongoing sibling relationship throughout their lives.
8. With that in mind I am asked by the parents to consider adjourning the proceedings in respect of Y and Z until the outcome of the placement of X with MA is known. If the placement is unsuccessful I am urged to direct the local authority to search for a long-term foster placement where all three girls could remain together, and to dismiss the application for Placement Orders. I am also invited to use that time to direct a further assessment of the parents' new partners and the maternal grandparents.
9. The Children's Guardian supports the local authority applications as set out above.
10. The issues I have to decide at this point therefore are whether Y and Z should be made the subject of final care orders and placement orders, which would lead to them being placed for adoption and separated from their sister, or whether any of the children can returned to the care of one of their parents, or the maternal grandparents, either now or in the foreseeable future.

The Background

11. The family history is fully set out in the chronology, reports, and assessments contained in the bundle and it is not necessary to repeat it again in full in this judgment.
12. The local authority first became involved with this family in November 2010 when X was aged approximately 10 months old and it has been involved intermittently since this date. Ms W. and Mr T. were in a relationship at that time although they present at this hearing as having separated. The mother states they separated around March/April 2014 but that she continued to be harassed by the father thereafter. The concerns of professionals were in respect of physical and emotional abuse and neglect, as well as the children's exposure to domestic violence.
13. Eventually the children were made the subjects of Child Protection Plans between 17^th February 2012 and the 18^th October 2012. The case was closed to Social Care in February 2013 but remained as a case within the 'Common Assessment Framework' until August 2013, when it was re-opened due to an incident of domestic violence. The on-going issues were parental drug abuse, the poor home conditions, and violence within the home. It is common ground that this was not a low level of domestic violence but extreme violence at a level which would have traumatised most adults who were unfortunate enough to witness it, let alone a child. The mother accepts she was the main instigator in this and the first person to be violent towards the father when she stabbed him with a knife. During the local authority's Parenting Assessment she disclosed that she carried a hammer for protection and has used this on three occasions against the father. On the last occasion she said that she had nearly cleaved off the father's ear as she had 'accidentally used the claw side of the hammer'. The result was bloody and the children had been exposed to this. She candidly accepts she was smoking cannabis and this made her aggressive when she didn't have any. A few months after the first incident of violence perpetrated by the mother, the father began to be violent towards her, and he has been so on many occasions since. He has inflicted a broken finger on the mother, bruised her legs so severely she struggled to walk, and hit her so hard he fractured his own hand when punching her. The children were exposed to their father strangling their mother and X has since spoken about that incident. He threatened to burn down the family home, a complaint which the mother believed to be serious yet she still maintained her contact with him. The mother accepts a lot of this violence was in front of the children and that the Police "were called out loads of times following arguments and violence" – Page C357(7).
14. The abuse was not confined to inflicting it upon each other. In June 2014 the Health Visitor reports that the father made a referral to the local authority alleging the mother had thrown him out of the house because he had refused to buy her cannabis the previous day. The mother agrees this referral was made and, fearing the children would be removed from her care and placed with the maternal grandmother, she made a false allegation of sexual abuse against her brother who was living with the maternal grandparents. The mother included X in this allegation and made a complaint to the Police that her brother had sexually abused herself and her daughter. This may have been an impulsive decision initially, but it involved the mother giving a statement on video and maintaining her allegations for a period of months until they were finally retracted around September/October 2014. In her oral evidence the mother explained she made the false allegation in an attempt to prevent the removal of the children from her care following the father's referral to the local authority, although how it was designed to achieve that was not quite clear. It is worthy to note here that the mother's brother suffered from encephalitis as a child, and the maternal grandmother explained he now has brain damage and learning difficulties as a result. The mother's evidence on this issue is that as herself and the maternal grandmother were not on speaking terms for a period of five months from March/April 2014 anyway, it didn't cause any upset in the family as they had already fallen out with each other. The mother's lack of understanding and insight into the impact this allegation may have had on X and the maternal uncle, even as late as the final hearing itself, is something which has been of concern to the local authority and the Children's Guardian in these proceedings.
15. The parents accept the above concerns represent a failure of parenting. Whilst they were together and the children lived at home they were offered support by professionals to address these concerns but there was no sustained improvement. On the 16^th September 2014 the children were accommodated by the local authority under section 20 of the Children Act 1989 following a section 47 investigation in relation to a physical injury sustained by X. It was proposed that a full parenting assessment would be undertaken which would take 16 weeks, and would be completed by the 6^th February 2015. On the 3^rd December 2014 the local authority was informed that the mother no longer consented to the children being placed in the care of the local authority and wanted them to be returned. This led to the issue of these proceedings with an application for care orders and interim orders and, supported as it was by the Children's Guardian, the court made interim care orders in respect of all three children on the 9^th December 2014. They have remained in place continuously since this date.
16. The impact of this parenting on the children was noticeable. Concerns were expressed about their aggression and violence towards each other of hitting and nipping, their sibling rivalry went far beyond that seen with other children of their age and required a high degree of supervision. Concerns were expressed about their attachment styles, lack of routines and boundaries, and their poor ability to play. X would sleep in the foetal position on her bedroom floor as opposed to the bed, and was scared of the bath and her toothbrush, she initially refused to attend for contact with her parents. The placement of all three girls in a joint placement broke down after 24 hours with the foster carer explaining that their destructive behaviour had "trashed the house after one night". The inter-sibling aggression was so extreme that it meant their individual needs could not be met and no level of support could be identified to keep the children together. Consequently, the decision was made to move X to a separate placement. It is worth remembering that this extreme behaviour was from children who, at the relevant time, were aged only 4 years 8 months; 2 years 3 months; and 15 months. They were considered to be so psychologically damaged that an expert assessment was required. On the 17^th December 2014 the court directed Dr Sara Whittaker, Chartered Clinical Psychologist, to assess the children. There is no dispute over her subsequent conclusion that the children are in need of therapeutic parenting to address the emotional damage they have suffered in the care of their parents.
17. In respect of contact during the proceedings the mother has shown a great deal of commitment to her children through attending the overwhelming majority of contact sessions and attending a great many assessment appointments as directed by the court and the local authority. She has been able to present herself as pleasant and engaging in that process. Contact itself has on many occasions been positive with the mother displaying warmth and providing some positive parenting to the children. On other occasions the mother has struggled to manage the children, the main complaints of the local authority has been the lack of consistency and a lack of insight for the effects of her parenting upon the children.
18. Mr T. has also shown good commitment to the children although more recently he has missed contact sessions when he has been unable to return from seeing his own father in Town S., and when he has been visiting his new partner who lives in Leeds.
19. If care and placement orders are made it is proposed that there will be a gradual reduction in contact for both parents to Y and Z, with a farewell contact for the therapeutic purposes of the children's 'Life Story' books. The parents' reduction in contact to X if she is placed with MA is contained in the assessment plan referred to above.
20. Various assessments and reports have been carried out as detailed in the local authority's case summary, all of which recommend the children should not be returned to the care of the parents. On the basis of these reports the local authority now seeks a final care order, coupled with a placement order, authorising them to place Y and Z for adoption. The local authority proposes to search for an adoptive placement where the children will be placed together. If these orders are made no direct contact is proposed between the children and their parents or their older sister in the event of an adoption taking place. Post-placement it is proposed that the parents and X be provided with indirect contact once per year via the letterbox system. The Children's Guardian invites the local authority to think carefully and creatively about the way in which the relationship between the children in particular, can be maintained in the future through indirect contact.
21. The Children's Guardian has submitted a final report in response to the local authority's applications for care and placement orders. In that report and in her oral evidence the Children's Guardian supported the applications of the local authority.
22. I have read the court bundle which includes the statements filed on behalf of the parents and local authority, the assessments filed in the proceedings together with the psychological assessment, and the reports filed by the children's guardian. I have received written, closing submissions from each party.
23. During the course of the hearing I heard oral evidence over three days between the 27^th – 29^th April 2015 from the psychologist Dr Sara Whittaker; from Ms Hayden-Game the social worker from the Family Assessment Team (FAT) who carried out the Parenting Assessment; from Ms Sarah Simms who carried out the Viability Assessment on the maternal grandparents; from the key social worker Ms Jennifer Lee and briefly from her co-worker Ms Railor Kosar; from the mother and her new partner Mr K; from the maternal grandmother MGM; from the father; and finally from the Children's Guardian.
24. It should be recorded that even where I do not refer to any particular piece of written assessment, evidence or report during the course of my judgment, it has nevertheless been read and taken into consideration. Whilst many issues were raised during the course of the hearing I have determined only those which required resolving to determine these proceedings justly.

The Law

25. Care proceedings involve two principal questions. First, are the threshold criteria for making a care order under section 31 of the Children Act 1989 satisfied? Secondly, if so, what order should the court make?
26. Section 31(2) provides:

"A court may only make a care order or supervision order if it is satisfied (a) that the child concerned is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm and (b) that the harm, or likelihood of harm is attributable to

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

(ii) The child's being beyond parental control"

27. In this case the fact the section 31 threshold criteria is satisfied is not disputed by the parents. The father accepts the facts as pleaded in the amended local authority document. The mother accepts those which relate to her except paragraphs 3(b), where the mother states she did not receive notification of any appointments with the Child Development Clinic and therefore wasn't aware of any appointments; 3(c) where she disputes the father returned to the home because of his concern for the children, it is the mother's case the father returned to the home because he was more interested in her; 3(f) the mother was unsure whether the children missed medical appointments but conceded "they have missed a couple"; and 3(i) where the mother disputes her use of cannabis had any impact on the children and explained this was because "I used to smoke it when they were in bed…drug dealers never came to the house and I didn't take money from the family budget because I had stopped using it before any of this happened".
28. Burden and Standard of Proof

The burden of proving the allegations is, in accordance with the guidance given by the Supreme Court in Re B (Children) [2008] UKHL 35 with the party making those allegations. In this case that is the local authority. The standard of proof required is the balance of probabilities and I determine all factual disputes on that basis.

29. With respect to those factual matters disputed by the mother I am persuaded that in respect of paragraph 3(c) the father returned to the property after the parents relationship ended for both reasons i.e. because he was concerned about the level of care being offered to the children, and because he wanted to prolong his relationship with the mother. This is because this conclusion is consistent with the referral he made to the local authority in June 2014 regarding the mother's care of the children, and it is consistent with the father's oral evidence that "She (the mother) was nasty at the time, I didn't trust her at the time….She could have done more for the kids, I was going (round) to make sure they were looked after. She didn't like me interfering." In cross-examination by Mrs Wrottesley he explained "I didn't go to the home just to see her all the time." (my emphasis added). It being implicit that he did wish to see her as well, and he accepted he found their break-up very difficult to cope with.
30. In respect of paragraph 3(f) I am persuaded the children did miss medical appointments because not only does the mother make a partial admission to this effect, but also because the maternal grandmother, in her unchallenged oral evidence, referred to an argument between herself and the mother around April 2014 when she advised the mother to take X to a medical appointment as social care had requested, and the mother refused. It is agreed this argument led to the mother and the maternal grandmother not speaking for a number of weeks. I make this finding and include it within paragraph 3(g) as well.
31. In respect of paragraph 3(i) with reference to the parents' cannabis use. I note the mother denies it had any impact on her care of the children but I am entirely persuaded that the mother's cannabis use did have a significant adverse impact upon her parenting. This is because in her own statement at C356(2) she accepts "I smoked cannabis when in a relationship with (the father) and this made me aggressive when I didn't have it". In this family, where the domestic violence was extreme, and where both parents were the perpetrators, the suggestion that it had no impact on her parenting only serves to underline her lack of insight into her past behaviour and its effect on the children. I am further persuaded to accept the evidence of Mr T. that "I would fetch the cannabis. I was getting it every day for her. I wasn't using as much as her" because it was unchallenged and consistent with the recorded reason behind his referral to social care in June 2014. In view of the father's admission that cannabis was being purchased daily, it is highly likely this would have affected the family budget with the associated adverse impact that would have had on the care of the children, and it does run the risk of drug-dealers becoming associated with the family. I make this finding accordingly.
32. In respect of paragraph 3(b) however, there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate which appointments, if any, X did not attend at the Child Development Centre. These have not been fully particularised to enable the mother to respond, and in view of the local authority's failure to attain the necessary standard of proof I do not make this finding.
33. Therefore, having determined those issues, my findings lead inevitably to the conclusion that, on the relevant date, namely the date on which protective measures were taken in September 2014, all three children had suffered and were likely to suffer significant physical and emotional harm, and impairment to their health and development as a result of neglect and by seeing or hearing the ill-treatment of another, if they were to be placed in the care of their parents.
34. The second question for the court to answer is what order should I make?
35. In answering that question I apply well-established legal principles. I bear in mind the rights of the parents and the children under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights to respect for family and private life. Under section 1(1) of the Children Act 1989, the children's welfare is my paramount consideration in the care proceedings. Under section 1(2), any delay in making decisions concerning their future is likely to prejudice their welfare. Section 1(3) provides a checklist of factors to be taken into account when determining where their welfare lies, and what order should be made. In this case, the particularly important elements are: the children's needs, the capacity of the parents to meet those needs; and any harm they are at risk of suffering.
36. On the application for a placement order, the court applies section 1 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002. On such an application, my paramount consideration is the children's welfare throughout their life: section 1(2). Again, I take into account the fact that delay in coming to a decision is likely to prejudice their welfare. There is, again, a checklist of factors to be taken into account, in this case set out in section 1(4) of the 2002 Act. In this case, the important factors are the children's needs; the likely effect on them, throughout their life, of having ceased to be a member of their birth family and becoming an adopted person; their background; any harm they are at risk of suffering; any relationship they have with their birth family and the value of that continuing; and the parents' ability to provide them with a safe and secure environment and meet their needs. In addition, both section 1(3)(g) of the 1989 Act and section 1(6) of the 2002 Act require the court to have regard to the range of orders available.
37. Under section 21(3) of the 2002 Act, a court may not make a placement order unless satisfied either that the parent has consented to the child being placed for adoption or that his or her consent should be dispensed with. In this case neither parent has consented to the making of a placement order. Under section 52(1)(b), the court may dispense with the parents' consent if the welfare of the child requires the consent to be dispensed with.
38. These provisions have been subjected to analysis in a number of important decisions by the higher courts, and in particular by the Supreme Court in Re B [2013] UKSC 33 and in a series of decisions in the Court of Appeal culminating in re B-S [2013] EWHC Civ 1146 and Re W [2013] EWHC Civ 1227. I have had those decisions firmly in mind at all points during this hearing.
39. In this case, the options argued for by any party are:- (a) the immediate rehabilitation of any of the children with one of their parents and their new partners; (b) the further assessment and rehabilitation of any of the children to the maternal grandparents and/or with X placed with MA; (c) an indefinite future in long term foster care for all three children together; or (d) adoption for Y and Z, with X placed separately in a family placement. The latter would of course, be a last resort for Y and Z, and the court will only take that course if satisfied that nothing else will do.
40. Option one – the return of all or any of the children to Ms W. or Mr T.

Ms W. and Mr K.

41. The mother submits that she is in a position to offer care to two of her children, she stated in her oral evidence "Managing all three is difficult, they have a lot of issues. I wouldn't be able to cope with all three. I could cope with Y and Z, but not all three, and I would need help and support as well". The mother stated in her evidence that no one could care for all three children together at this stage and attributed responsibility for that to the local authority for not taking "the right steps at the beginning".
42. In view of her candid acceptance of the difficulties of caring for all three, I consider it is not a realistic option to consider her further as a carer for all three and propose to consider her case, as she invites me to do, as a carer for Y and Z, with X placed with MA, or as a carer for X, with Y and Z with the maternal grandparents.
43. The mother submits that as a parent she has demonstrated many positive attributes to her parenting, that she has a good bond with the children and a good attachment; that she has demonstrated an ability to accept and act upon the advice given by professionals; and that she has been able to move forward, reflecting on her previous behaviour. It is submitted on her behalf that she has taken steps to address the areas which have caused problems in her parenting, most significantly by ending her relationship with Mr T. In further support she points to the absence of Police call-outs to her property, and the drug test results which have been carried out within the proceedings and which were negative in outcome.
44. Ms W. accepts that before any of the children could be placed in her care there would need to be an assessment of her new partner, Mr K., and she would need to obtain suitable accommodation as she is currently residing in a one bedroom flat with Mr K. It is submitted that with support, the two of them could care safely for Y and Z, or X.
45. In contrast, the local authority and the Children's Guardian submit there is strong evidence to suggest the mother, even with support, could not care safely for any of her children at the current time, or within any meaningful timescale for the children. They draw the court's attention to the following evidence.
46. Firstly, there are the comprehensive findings made, identifying wide-ranging significant harm and neglect of the children as set out above.
47. Secondly, the Family Assessment Team (FAT), and Ms Hayden-Game and Ms Railor Kosar in particular, carried out a comprehensive Parenting Assessment to assess the parents' parenting capacity. There is no dispute that it was a very thorough and comprehensive assessment. The FAT Parenting Assessment outlines the extent to which the parents have struggled to offer consistent parenting; their lack of insight into the concerns of the local authority; and the likelihood of a repetition of what has happened in the past due to insufficient change.
48. In her oral evidence Ms Hayden-Game expressed her concern regarding the mother's lack of insight into the impact the domestic violence had upon the children, she said "In group sessions her behaviour was strange, she laughed and didn't take the subject seriously. In individual work she couldn't transfer it to how it may have affected the children themselves….The facilitators thought Ms W's behaviour was bizarre and lacked sensitivity to other group members…she was flippant and laughing."
49. Another significant concern of the social workers in respect of the mother was her lack of consistency. At some contact sessions she was able to demonstrate warmth towards the children, she could demonstrate some ability to parent, and she did make some progress. However, she was never consistent and did not make sufficient progress to be able to meet the needs of these particular children.
50. The key social worker, Ms Lee, agreed with the outcome of the Parenting Assessment. Ms Lee confirmed her written opinion at C291(57) that "Ms W. appears to be stuck in the stage of contemplation, and she is unable to progress this to 'action' in the form of effecting change. She is able to say what the impact is but her behaviour does not respond to that…Even though they've (the parents) been separated since April 2014 there are ongoing concerns at contact with either parent hanging around instigating arguments between each other and that happened as recently as the FAT summary meeting. The week before last the father was seeking to live with the maternal grandmother which would suggest they are still entrenched with each other".
51. Both Ms Hayden-Game and Ms Lee were questioned about the need to assess the mother's new partner Mr K, and whether he is likely to be capable of compensating for any deficiencies in the mother's parenting. It is agreed that Ms Hayden-Game explained to the mother very early on in the assessment process that if she was in a relationship with Mr K. he would need to be assessed for that purpose. There is no dispute that the following week the mother told Ms Hayden-Game that she had ended their relationship. The agreed date for this is around the time the mother filed her statement dated the 24^th November 2014. At C91(11) the mother concludes that statement with the comments, "I can see how dependent I was upon Mr T. when we were together. I now realise that it is not Mr T. or another man that I need, it's just my children. They will always come first from now".
52. Ms Lee explained that she was aware by mid-February 2015 that the mother had said she had ended her relationship with Mr K. just before Christmas in order to focus on the needs of the children. However, around the 30^th/31^st March 2015 Ms Kosar received a voicemail message from the mother stating she was in a relationship with Mr K. and wanted him to be assessed. Nothing more was heard again in respect of this until the matter was listed for the IRH on the 20^th April 2015 when the mother again asked for Mr K. to be assessed.
53. The mother admitted in her oral evidence that she had lied to the local authority regarding the extent of her relationship with Mr K. She said they had known each other since 2013 having met online and participated in online gaming. She said that the father had been his friend and she started talking to Mr K. herself once her relationship with the father ended in March/April 2014. Between July and September 2014 she was spending a good four hours per day messaging Mr K, mostly at night between the hours of 6pm – 11pm. In July 2014, Mr K, who lived in London, visited Rotherham for the first time and stayed with the mother and the children for approximately three days, although both maintain he never met any of the children. The mother alleges this was achieved by the father having the children throughout the day and at night they were in bed. The children were therefore totally unaware that Mr K. was in the house.
54. The mother accepts that when she told Ms Hayden-Game they were no longer in a relationship in November 2014, and repeated this to the Guardian in December 2014, that it was a lie and Mr K. was actually visiting Rotherham and they were in a sexual relationship at the time. The mother and Mr K state he moved to live with the mother in Rotherham in March 2015 and they now plan their long-term future together.
55. The local authority and the Children's Guardian submit that it is unrealistic to expect this relationship, in its fledgling state, could be considered stable enough to parent these particular children. Ms Lee stated that any relationship which the mother embarked upon would need to be free of violence for at least 6 -12 months before they could be confident it was not a concern which the children would be exposed to. Furthermore, the local authority and the Guardian have no confidence they could rely on anything the mother tells them in light of her admitted lies over this relationship, and her lies to the Police and her family regarding the false allegations of sexual abuse.
56. The local authority and Children's Guardian also express their joint concerns for any delay the further assessment of Mr K. will cause, and the impact of this upon the children.
57. In his oral evidence, Mr K's evidence conflicted with that of the mother in that his evidence is that he didn't recall meeting the father online. He is 22 years of age and hasn't cared for any children before. His relationship with the mother is his first serious relationship and his family are not aware that the mother's children are in the care of the local authority. He didn't believe he would need any help from family members or any other agency to care for the children, and held no concerns about the prospect of caring for them. His evidence on whether he knew about the on-going proceedings and the need for any assessment in December 2014 was vague and inconsistent with his answers as "I don't know, I can't recall,…I would have said 'yes'", but then said "I didn't want my family being involved" (as part of any assessment) and maintained he did not see why they should be involved. He agreed he had not thought about the impact on the two children of coming to live with them and stated he didn't know how he would deal with that. Mr K. stated that he and the mother had moved in together last month and they not discussed what would be involved regarding caring for the children.

Mr T. and his partner C.

58. Mr T. concedes he cannot care for any of the children on his own. He does not even have the basic of accommodation. It is agreed that two weeks ago he sent a message to the mother via social media requesting her to ask the maternal grandmother if he could stay with her. The maternal grandmother's reply was to defer to the grandfather who said 'no'. In any event, at this final hearing the father is living with his new partner 'C' and her four year old son in Leeds. During the course of this hearing Leeds Children's Services visited C to alert her to the safeguarding issues in respect of Mr T. The court was informed that that this led to her becoming distressed and unable to attend court to give evidence to support Mr T. It is a relationship of short duration and no written statement in support has been provided from C.
59. In his oral evidence, Mr T. confirmed he fully supports the children being returned to the care of their mother, and his opinion is that "she should be given another chance". The father makes this submission whilst not resiling from any of his previous evidence set out elsewhere in this judgment, namely that the mother was nasty, he didn't trust her, he had seen her demonstrate angry behaviour in front of the girls, the bruise to X's eye (which precipitated the children's removal into care) had occurred when the mother dragged X upstairs through the stair-gate, and that he was buying the mother cannabis on a daily basis.
60. The concerns held by the local authority and the Children's Guardian which are applicable to the mother and Mr K, are equally applicable to the father's new partner. This is a very recent relationship, of short duration, and is untested. Very little is known about 'C', and she has declined to participate in the proceedings to any extent.
61. The unchallenged factual evidence contained in the chronology, reports, and assessments outlines the impact the parental abuse has had on the children's presentation and their lack of resilience to future harm occurring. It is agreed by all parties that they are children who have been damaged by the parenting given to them by their birth parents and all three are in need of therapeutic parenting.
62. The advantages to the children being brought up in the care of either parent is that it would enable the children to be brought up within their birth family and to maintain direct links with important family members, both adults and siblings. This is an important part of any person's need for identity. It is what any child would choose for themselves if it could be achieved safely. This court does not underestimate the value of sibling relationships or the research which indicates it is often the most enduring relationship in a person's life.
63. Unfortunately, the disadvantages for the children are many as set out in the social worker's written and oral evidence. These are amplified by the assessments, psychological reports, and the Children Guardian's reports and final analysis. This is not a single issue case although the most salient feature is the extent of the significant harm these children have suffered in the care of their parents. The schedule of findings sets out the full range of deficiencies of parenting. It includes physical injuries from a lack of supervision; the emotional harm of seeing and hearing harm being inflicted upon another person; the neglect of education, health, and hygiene; the use of illicit substances; and a failure to adhere to a Contract of Expectations and co-operate with professionals who were charged with the responsibility of safeguarding the children.
64. There is a significant concern that the children's holistic development needs would not be met.
65. Option two – Placement of any of the children with the maternal grandparents/extended family following further assessment
66. There has been a positive viability assessment of MA as a carer for X. MA initially came forward to care for all three children but having read the report prepared by Dr Whittaker she agreed with Ms Lee that she was only in a position to care for one child alongside her own. Her views remain unchanged in that respect and she has played no part in these proceedings herself. Therefore, there is no evidence before the court to suggest MA is a realistic option to care for Y and Z.

The maternal grandparents (MGPs)

67. The MGPs were the subjects of a negative Viability Assessment carried out by Ms Simms dated 28^th January 2015 at C195. Until the IRH on the 20^th April 2015 it was not known that this couple wished to challenge the negative viability assessment. The mother agrees she had a copy of it and knew of its outcome as far back as January 2015. She agreed she had discussions with the maternal grandmother in January 2015 about the outcome of that assessment and the grandmother "couldn't understand how they had come to that conclusion and she said she wanted to protest it". MGM agrees she knew of the conclusions of the assessment by February 2015. Unfortunately nothing was done to progress their objection either by the mother who has been legally represented throughout these proceedings, or by the maternal grandparents themselves.
68. At this hearing MGM has had the opportunity to sit in court to listen to the evidence of Ms Simms and to ask any questions the maternal grandparents may have via Mrs Wrottesley, who very kindly assisted the court by presenting their views in light of the mother's wishes for them to be potential carers for the children.
69. The position of the maternal grandparents is that the Viability Assessment has significant failings and they should be offered a further, independent assessment before being excluded as potential carers for any of the children. The alleged failings of the assessment are fully set out in the written submissions prepared for the court by Mrs Wrottesley and not repeated here. It is submitted that they have strengths which have not been given the weight they should have been by the local authority or the Children's Guardian, namely that they have offered a home to the children and the mother in 2012 to assist the local authority; they have experience of therapeutic parenting when their family had to manage the maternal uncle's recovery from encephalitis; there is no risk of collusion between the mother and the grandmother; the maternal grandparents engaged with the assessment process; they have a suitable home; and they have an existing relationship with the children. It is submitted that with support, the two of them could care safely for Y and Z, or for X.
70. In contrast, the local authority and the Children's Guardian submit there is good evidence to suggest the maternal grandparents, even with support, could not care safely for any of their grandchildren at the current time, or within any meaningful timescale for the children. They draw the court's attention to the following evidence.
71. In addition to those factors which are set out in the report of Ms Simms which are not repeated here, the local authority points to the family history of the maternal grandmother's disputes and arguments with the mother, when she has failed to act as a protective factor to safeguard the children's welfare. There is a repeated history of the mother not communicating with the grandmother for lengthy periods and failing to listen to her advice, and at such times the grandmother has done little or nothing to intervene despite being aware of the volatile nature of the mother's relationship with Mr T., their cannabis use; and the impact of this on the children.
72. MGM agreed the parents had started arguing before any of the children had been born, she said "Even in their teenage years I knew it wasn't a good relationship. I tried to advise her (the mother) but she said to keep your nose out, it is none of your business". Later, MGM went on to explain that "They were not showing any commitment to X, I took over and fed her. I told her (the mother) it should be her job not mine." MGM agreed with the comments of the Health Visitor at C132 that her relationship with the mother was fraught and volatile because the mother was "not doing a lot and I wanted her to do more for X".
73. MGM agreed the parents and children came to live with her and her husband for a period of time in 2012 because "they (the parents) were fighting and it was necessary for them to come and live with me". They moved out again because the house became too overcrowded. She explained her frustration and annoyance that she believed "I'd got them straight again" whilst they were living with her but once they moved out "they went back down the path they went down". "I found out they were fighting again and I was concerned again…Mr T. would always go for the cannabis, I could smell it when I went down. Ms W. said she wasn't using it – that it was coming from next door but I didn't believe her".
74. MGM explained that she had fallen out with the mother again around April 2014 because "Mr T. said X needed to go to the doctors. I phoned Ms W. and she blew her top and said I was interfering, and it was her daughter and not mine…she told me to keep my nose out" so they were not speaking for a few weeks in which time she did not see the children. They then had another argument which led to them not speaking for five months. It was during this second period that the mother made the false allegation in June 2014 about her brother sexually abusing herself and X. MGM said "It didn't bother me as we weren't talking anyway. She did that because she thought I was going to take the children off her".
75. MGM agreed the mother had first made the allegation of sexual abuse to herself and she did nothing about it, she explained this was because "I didn't believe her regarding the false allegation against J.". MGM's advice to the mother was to contact the Police, even though she knew the mother did not do this for a quite a long time. MGM stated that although the father was bringing the children to visit her during this period she didn't know the local authority was involved with the family at this time.
76. MGM confirmed she was aware of her daughter's relationship with Mr K. from about October/November 2014. She considered it to be none of her business. MGM agreed the children had been adversely affected by what they had witnessed in the care of their parents and that 'they are a handful" to care for. But in her opinion she had done as much as she could do and couldn't do anymore. MGM expressed her views that "They (the local authority) have not done enough for my grandchildren. When I told them they were having difficulties with X, if they'd stepped in then it wouldn't have happened. They delayed acting, they were right to act but should have acted sooner".
77. The local authority and Children's Guardian submit that the above evidence demonstrates that the maternal grandmother minimises her role in the children's upbringing and despite her many concerns about the care being provided to the children she did little to prevent it or step in. She could have brought the matter to the court's attention herself in April 2014 by making an application to care for the children when the mother was failing to meet X's health needs, using cannabis, and fighting with the father, or in June 2014 when the mother made the allegation of sexual abuse. Instead the grandmother absented herself from the children's lives for significant periods and blames the local authority for their presentation.
78. The Children's Guardian submits that the maternal grandmother does not have any real understanding of the harm the children have suffered and the significant needs they are likely to have in the future. When this is set alongside the concerns identified in the viability assessment it is submitted that there is insufficient positive information to indicate that these grandparents will be able to offer the therapeutic parenting which these children now require. In addition, any further assessment, which all agree would be necessary and will cause further delay, has been caused by the mother's and grandparents' inaction, and is outside the timescales for permanency which these children need.
79. When considering these disadvantages I must also consider the many advantages to the children being brought up in the care of their extended family. It would enable the children to be brought up within their birth family and to maintain direct links with important family members, both adults and siblings. The children have established links with their grandparents, who have committed to contact, and this is an important part of any person's need for identity. Again, it is what any child would choose for themselves if they could not live with a natural parent and it could be achieved safely.

Option three – Placement in long term foster care

80. The advantage of a final care order is that it would keep the door open for the mother, and indeed their father, firstly to make and thereafter to consolidate any changes in their parenting of the children. The children would be able to maintain their direct links with family members whilst this is being undertaken, including their important relationships with X and with their grandparents.
81. If it is not possible to place X with MA in due course, it would keep the door open for all three girls to be brought up in foster care together thereby providing each other with emotional support in life.
82. The disadvantages or negatives of a care order and long term foster care are those which apply to many children in their situation. They include the following:

(a) They would carry the stigma of being a "Looked After Child" and have to endure the associated burden of corporate parenting indefinitely, and potentially up until their 18^th Birthdays.

(b) They would lose their entitlement to be 'claimed' by a family and to have the unequivocal sense of belonging to a particular family. The more temporary sense of belonging whilst living in foster care may undermine a person's sense of identity which is an important aspect of their development.

(c) Although most foster placements are successful, a not insignificant number break down, resulting in further emotional harm to the child. This local authority is unable to guarantee the same foster carer/s would care for the girls throughout their minority. Y and Z are children who have already experienced a great deal of instability and are in urgent need for permanency. Their life experiences to date mean they would be more adversely affected than some other children who do not share the same experiences, to the effects of further changes in placement.

(d) Y and Z are likely not to settle and put down roots in any placement whilst they hold the ongoing expectation they may, at any moment, be returning to the care of their mother or father. This is contrary to their welfare. These children have experienced a great deal of unpredictable parenting and desperately need certainty and stability in their lives to enable them to build firm attachments to adult carers.

Option four – Placement for adoption

83. The advantages and disadvantages of making an order placing Y and Z for adoption are summarised in the evidence as follows:

(a) In all probability their emotional and physical needs would be fully met in an adoptive placement;

(b) they would be placed with a carer or carers who would have been comprehensively assessed as having the capacity to look after a child, and specifically matched as suitable and equipped to meet their specific needs;

(c) There is less likelihood they would suffer significant harm in the care of an adopter or adopters. They would be safe and secure, and not exposed to the degree of risk of harm arising from the care of the parents;

(d) As a result of being provided with a stable and consistent care environment, they would have an opportunity to lead a 'normal life'. In a secure environment, they would have a good chance of developing into a balanced and emotionally stable person;

(e) Y and Z are almost 3 and 2 years old respectively. They remain of an age when they are still capable of managing a successful transition from foster care to adoption without suffering emotional harm but the window of opportunity is rapidly running out.

84. The disadvantages or negatives of a placement order and subsequent adoption are those which apply to many children in their situation. They are as follows:

(a) They would lose the potential of relationships with their sister, their birth parents, and other extended family members. Such relationships are extremely valuable to children even where the relatives are unable to care for the child.

(b) They would lose their sense of identity as a member of the birth family. A person's sense of identity is an important aspect of their development.

(c) Although most adoptions are successful, a not insignificant number also break down, resulting in further emotional harm to the child.

85. Both the local authority and the Children's Guardian have reached a firm recommendation that their welfare requires the court to approve the plan for adoption.
86. In assessing their opinions I must consider whether Y and Z should be separated from X as the local authority and the Children's Guardian submit is in their best interests, and whether adoption is the necessary way of meeting their welfare needs throughout their lives.
87. The local authority and Children's Guardian rely upon the evidence of the jointly instructed expert, Dr Sara Whittaker who is a Chartered Clinical Psychologist and who assessed all three children. Dr Whittaker was asked to report on the children's relationship with each other, their attachment to their parents, their long term psychological needs, and the type of placement which would best meet their needs. Despite firm and quite proper cross-examination on behalf of the parents, Dr Whittaker was quite clear in her opinion that the three girls would be likely to be too difficult for one carer or couple to manage, to ensure attention could be given to each child, and also to ensure the developmental and therapeutic needs are met for each child. Dr Whittaker's opinion is that the children do not present as a close sibling group and the necessity of two separate placements – separating X from her sisters should be considered. Dr Whittaker explained that the foster carer for Y and Z told her on the 11.02.2015 that these two girls alone require considerable individual and joint attention, and she had reflected long and hard whether Y and Z should be separated as well. However, on balance and with the improvements they have made over the last 7 months in foster care, the carer's opinion was that 'with close supervision and a strong boundaried approach' they could be managed together. Dr Whittaker agreed with this.
88. Dr Whittaker had weighed in the balance the progress all three children had made in foster care, the difficulties they have experienced in their early lives, and what their individual needs now require. Dr Whittaker opined that even if a placement for X with MA did not work out, she would not support placing all three children together in an adoptive or long term foster placement. Not only would there be a struggle to identify prospective adopters due to X's difficulties and complexities in combination with Y and Z's, but that their needs are more extensive than average children of their ages. Due to their life experiences to date all three girls require therapeutic parenting with more insight, patience and advice than the average child demands. Their carers will need to access therapeutic advice and training throughout their childhood, into adolescence, and beyond. Whilst it may, in theory, be possible to find a foster carer who would take all three children, this was not what Dr Whittaker recommended for the girls. In support of her opinion she relied upon the information from Y and Z's foster carer set out above regarding their more recent presentation, and the fact X had to be removed from her sisters within 24 hours of being taken into care because her behaviour was unmanageable.
89. Having reached that conclusion, Dr Whittaker went on to consider the nature of the placement which would best meet the needs of Y and Z if they were to be separated from X. In her opinion, the best outcome which meets their needs for permanence in view of their ages and welfare throughout their lives was an adoptive placement. It promotes greater stability for these little girls and removes the stigma of being in care.
90. Dr Whittaker opined she had carefully considered the sibling assessment carried out by the local authority in reaching her conclusions and also taken into account a wide canvass of evidence including the observations of health professionals who had dealings with the children. In essence she identifies the difficulty of sacrificing the direct sibling relationship to achieve the outcome of long term permanency by way of adoption for Y and Z. Notwithstanding this disadvantage she remains of the view that to achieve the best outcome for Y and Z, the sacrifice has to be made. She was also clear that a final decision as soon as possible is necessary to enable the therapeutic work for the children to proceed effectively.
91. The local authority's own sibling assessment is in the bundle at C332 dated 16^th March 2015. It is augmented by subsequent observations of the children made by Ms Lee and supported by the Children's Guardian. It sets out in detail the children's more recent presentation to which I must have regard, and the positives and negative features of their relationships.

Conclusion

92. In my judgment, the evidence in this case fully complies with the requirements identified by the Court of Appeal in Re B-S. The realistic options for future care have been comprehensively analysed, and the advantages and disadvantages of each course carefully considered by the local authority and the Children's Guardian. I accept their analyses are comprehensive.
93. Fundamental to the argument on behalf of the mother, and implicitly of the father, is that following their separation they have changed, become insightful, and are capable of further change, and the professionals have failed to recognise the extent of this change.
94. What is the ability of either parent to meet the needs of their children? Has either parent changed sufficiently to be able to provide the therapeutic parenting the children need in the future, or could they do so with support and/or further training in the foreseeable future, thereby ensuring the risks to the children in their care are manageable?
95. I have given careful consideration to what the parents have said about the changes they have made, the difference further support and training would make to their parenting, and the additional support which would be afforded to the mother by Mr T, her new partner Mr K, and her own mother. In Mr T's case, the support which may be available to him from his new partner C, from the mother, and/or from MGM, and in both cases from the usual external agencies and local authority. However, I am persuaded by the evidence and submissions of the local authority and Children's Guardian that the further support identified by the parents neither could or would be sufficient to manage the risks to the children in the parents' care, either individually or collectively at the current time.
96. This is because insufficient progress in their basic parenting has been observed at contact and during the assessment process. One of the key issues which the local authority and this court is searching for is consistency of parenting and this was absent, that is corroborated by the contact notes. The mother was able to demonstrate emotional warmth on occasions but could not sustain this. In her assessment sessions she exhibited little sensitivity or remorse for what the children had experienced, at times not appearing to take the group sessions regarding domestic violence seriously, behaving flippantly and laughing. The mother attributed this to embarrassment. I do not accept that. She did not need to say or do anything but chose to behave as she did when participating in the sessions.
97. The mother asserts she is able to co-operate with professionals and can follow, and act upon their advice, reflecting on her previous behaviour. I do not accept this to be the case, or that she could achieve this consistently. She has lied to the local authority and the Children's Guardian about her relationship with Mr K and misled the court in her statement dated 24^th November 2014 when she stated she did not need another man and her focus was on the children, when all the time she knew she was in a sexual relationship with Mr K. Her evidence regarding Mr K and how they met was in conflict, with Mr K asserting he didn't recall meeting the father online and the mother alleging he was a friend of Mr T's before she started to message him. I am persuaded to accept Mr K's account on this issue and conclude that the mother is not being truthful in respect of how her relationship evolved. I am also persuaded by the submissions of the local authority and the Children's Guardian that both the mother and Mr K are not being truthful when they tell the court he stayed at the family home for three days in July 2014 without once meeting the children even though the children were living there. I find their account and explanation of this to be too incredible to be true in the context of a family home which lacked rules and boundaries, and children who lacked supervision. The far more likely explanation is that this is a mother who prioritised her need for a relationship above her parenting of the children, and she invited a man, whom she had never met in person, into the family home for a sexual relationship regardless of the risks or impact that may have had on the children. I reach this conclusion because it is consistent with her later behaviour of prioritising that relationship over the welfare of the children by not seeking an assessment of Mr K in a timely manner, despite her acceptance of the necessity of such assessment before the children could be returned to her care. Her request therefore adds credence to the local authority's submission that her focus is on her own needs, and her propensity is to work to a timetable which supports her own needs rather than the welfare of the children.
98. I am persuaded that the mother continues to lack insight into how her behaviour impacts on the children. This is demonstrated by her prioritising of her relationships with men, set out above. It is demonstrated by her lack of insight regarding her cannabis use on her parenting, which makes it highly likely she would use it again in the future, even though I accept she has remained abstinent in the short term. At this hearing she attributed blame to the local authority for the fact the children cannot be placed together in any placement for not 'doing enough at the beginning' i.e. in September 2014, without any acceptance of responsibility for how and why the children came to be in that position. The mother puts forward Mr K as a joint carer when it is clear from his evidence they have not discussed at all what the children's needs are, how these will be managed, and how it will affect them as a couple in the long term. I am therefore persuaded to accept the local authority and Children's Guardian's analysis of the on-going risks she presents to any of the children in her care.
99. The mother states she has separated from Mr T and sees this as the solution to their parenting difficulties. Unfortunately, that is far too simplistic and ignores their many individual deficiencies which I refer to elsewhere.
100. Notwithstanding their assertion they have ended their relationship and moved on to new partners I accept the local authority and Children's Guardian's submissions that these parents have continued to be involved with each other. There was no dispute they instigate arguments between each other during the handover for contact and this occurred as recently as the date of the FAT summary meeting. Two weeks ago, the father sent a message to the mother via Facebook asking her to ask the maternal grandmother if he could go and live with her because he was homeless thus indicating the extent to which they are still heavily involved in the lives of each other and therefore likely to be jointly involved in the lives of the children if placed in either of their care.
101. The above concerns regarding the mother are exacerbated by her inability to offer the parenting which these children now need. There is no dispute that all three children are in desperate need of therapeutic parenting and yet, the mother's lack of insight, remorse, and ability to act upon and parent consistently mean she is simply not in a position to meet their needs on her own either now or in the foreseeable future.
102. The father accepts he is not in a position to provide this care on his own and I have considered whether, in view of the many concerns regarding the parents individually, their new partners could ameliorate those concerns. Sadly, I have reached the conclusion that it is likely neither new partner could do so.
103. In respect of the mother, her relationship with Mr K may have been on-going for the last 10 months but they have only very recently begun to live together. In respect of the father's new partner, C, this relationship is even more recent and untested. Two weeks ago he was, by his own admission, homeless and requesting to stay at the maternal grandmother's. At the IRH listed on the 20^th April he informed the social worker he had been in that new relationship for 8 weeks. In his statement dated the 21^st April 2015 he states he is now living with his new partner in Leeds. During the course of this hearing it became apparent that his partner has her own reservations about continuing to live together due to concerns expressed by Leeds Children's Services in respect of the risks the father may pose to her son. Before either of the parents' partners could be assessed as a possible long term support for any of the children these relationships would need to have endured and showed signs of solid stability.
104. In view of the long history these parents have for arguments and serious fights, anyone who has the safeguarding of these children as their paramount consideration would need evidence that both the mother's and the father's new relationships are without violence or drug abuse, and evidence that their new partners could make up for the identified deficiencies in their parenting on a long term basis. The social worker suggested a timeframe of at least 6 to 12 months. In my judgment, in view of the lengthy history of these two parents that is a cautious time estimate and it would be closer to twelve months than six. As I have formed the view that the mother and Mr K are not being open and honest about their relationship this lengthy time frame is all the more important because their own assurances regarding their relationship will need to be approached with caution by professionals working with the family. That time frame is outside the timescales for these children's need for permanency. For all the above reasons I am persuaded there is insufficient merit to any application to direct an adjournment for further assessment of those two new partners when there are insufficient positives at this stage to offset the harm caused by future delay to the children's timeframe.
105. I have considered whether an adjournment and further assessment of the maternal grandmother is likely to provide an outcome whereby she could care for any of the children, or could provide the necessary support to either parent to ensure the risks would be manageable, but I am not persuaded this would be sufficient either. The relationship between the mother and the maternal grandmother is an unstable one. It is characterised by lengthy periods where it ceases to exist altogether. This has been an enduring pattern throughout the mother's life and up to the point where the children were removed, it is therefore unlikely to change in the foreseeable future or within any timescale appropriate to these children.
106. I am persuaded by the evidence and submissions of the local authority and Children's Guardian that there are insufficient positive features in the oral evidence of MGM and the Viability Assessment to warrant directing an adjournment of the proceedings for Y and Z to obtain an independent assessment of the maternal grandparents. I accept the maternal grandmother lacks the necessary insight and understanding regarding the impact on the children of the parenting they have received. This is because she has been well aware, for many years, of the parents' failures. She knew they were arguing and fighting, she knew they were using cannabis, anyone involved in the family could not fail to have noticed the children's behaviour of nipping and hitting each other, and yet MGM was unable or unwilling to intervene actively to prevent the extent of the harm occurring to the children. She had reason to believe the mother was failing to address the children's medical needs because the father alerted her to this, she also did nothing to protect the children when the mother reported her allegation of sexual abuse to her. This is particularly worrying when placed in context. This is a grandmother who made a referral herself to social services around 1997-1998 regarding the same maternal uncle, her son J. MGM sets it out in her own words in a letter:

"The children were playing upstairs which they often did. I went upstairs and Ms W (the mother) was sat on J's bedroom floor fully dressed but to my shock J. was naked. I went mad and asked J. why he didn't have any clothes on, he stated he was playing strip poker and I asked him why he didn't answer so I sent Ms W downstairs to her dad, slapped J. and explained he couldn't do things like that and I punished him, took his telly and his computer and grounded him, I phoned social services and explained what had happened"

In this example the maternal grandmother received no allegation of sexual abuse and yet still reported the matter to the local authority because of her suspicions something may have occurred. It is therefore difficult to understand why she chose to take no action at all to protect X, or indeed the mother, when the mother makes an allegation of sexual abuse against herself and X by the same individual in June 2014. Even in her oral evidence MGM concludes that she 'did all she could do' for the children. Sadly, I am not persuaded she did do enough and could have done so much more to alert the professionals regarding the parents' failures. A far more likely explanation is that she did not see it as her business or role to do so and it was easier to absent herself from the lives of her daughter and the children than to fight to have the children in her care. This is consistent with her views regarding Mr K who she knew was in a relationship with her daughter from October /November 2014 and yet who she also considered to be 'none of her business'.

107. MGM stated in evidence that she did understand the impact the parenting would have had on the children because "I went through it myself as a child so I know exactly how they feel". However, I do not accept this. MGM appeared to care for her grandchildren very much and if she truly understood the impact of the parenting received by the children she would surely have done so much more about it, including seeking to care for them at a far earlier stage in their lives. I am persuaded therefore, that MGM currently lacks insight into the children's life experiences and what their parenting needs in the future will be. Accordingly, she is unlikely to be able to offer them the therapeutic parenting they need.
108. Furthermore, in light of the pattern of the historic relationship between the mother and the maternal grandmother I have reached the conclusion that if any of the children were placed in the care of the maternal grandmother it would lead to conflict between the mother and the grandmother which will undermine any progress they have made or might make in the future.
109. I have considered the need to obtain a further assessment of the maternal grandparents. It is absolutely right that decisions must not be rushed due to a 'need for speed' – and this was re-stated in both Re B and re B-S. However, everyone involved in the decision making process, and that includes the court, must at all times balance the need for fairness with the impact of any delay on the child. The law is clear that any delay in coming to a decision is likely to prejudice the child's welfare (section 1(2) Children Act 1989 and section 1(3) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002). Given this, if a local authority can demonstrate that assessing another connected person would cause unacceptable delay to a child this is a legitimate reason under the law for not doing so.
110. In this case I am persuaded that a further assessment would cause unacceptable delay to Y and Z. Whilst it is correct that the 26 week timeframe does not expire until the beginning of June, the children have been in short-term foster care for over 7 months, all of the children face a further move of placement to permanent carers, and they need to build attachments to those carers as soon as possible. The children have individual attachment difficulties and complex needs in this respect. An Independent Assessor could report within 6-7 weeks from the date of instruction and there would then need to be time allocated for the parties to file individual responses and to find the availability to re-list at court. Realistically, in my view, it would delay the decision making for approximately 12 weeks. That of itself is unacceptable, and in my judgment there is already ample information available to the court and further assessment is unlikely to assist or alter my fundamental concerns surrounding this placement. I take into account that the mother and the maternal grandmother were aware of the negative outcome of the viability assessment as long ago as January 2015 and no application for further assessment was intimated prior to the IRH on the 20^th April 2015. There is no good reason, in my judgment, for why the mother couldn't have brought a C2 application on the grandparents' behalf for further assessment in that time which would have avoided this issue arising.
111. Accordingly, I am persuaded by the evidence that the parents have not made, and are unlikely to be able to make and sustain, the changes which are needed in any meaningful timescale for any of the children to return to their care. I accept the evidence of the local authority, and the Children's Guardian in respect of the maternal grandmother and together with my own conclusions I am persuaded that she too is unlikely to offer the therapeutic parenting which any of the children need.
112. I have considered the possibility of the children remaining in long term foster care, effectively to 'wait and see' if the parents can make the changes but in my judgment the likelihood of any change occurring in the foreseeable future is too unlikely to justify this delay and such a placement is incompatible with the long-term welfare needs of the children. I accept the analyses of the local authority, the Children's Guardian, and Dr Whittaker in this regard as a reflection of my own judgment. "Nothing else will do" does not mean the court settling for an option which will not meet the child's physical and/or emotional needs. Nor does it mean that adoption should be dismissed simply because a foster carer who would be prepared to take all three children might be found. This was set out by the Court of Appeal in the judgment of Lady Justice Macur DBE in Re M-H (A Child) [2014] EWCA Civ 1396 at paragraphs 9 and 11:

"the fact that there is another credible option worthy of examination will not mean that the test of 'nothing else will do' automatically bites. It couldn't possibly".

"The holistic balancing exercise of the available options that must be deployed in applications concerning adoption is not so as to undertake a direct comparison of what probably would be best but in order to ascertain whether or not the particular child's welfare demands adoption".

113. Under the law, adoption should be pursued where it is necessary in the interests of a child's welfare. The Supreme Court has reminded us that adoption is the last resort, and where possible, children should be brought up by their natural parents. Adoption has its own advantages and disadvantages as analysed by the social worker and the guardian and set out above. The significant disadvantage in this case is the permanent separation of the three girls and I have given this issue very careful thought.
114. I was impressed by the evidence of Dr Whittaker. She was thoughtful, moderate and gave careful answers to difficult questions, she was willing to acknowledge the difficulties inherent in the different permutations of outcome and was anxious to ensure she presented a fair and balanced view. I accept her opinion because it is consistent with the unchallenged factual evidence regarding the children's presentation and behaviour before and after they were received into care. It is consistent with the evidence given by the social worker and agreed by the parents regarding the children's behaviour. Dr Whittaker stated it was unusual for a child being received into care to require immediate separation from their siblings due to unmanageable behaviour, if it happens at all it is usually some time down the line, in my experience I agree. For these three children to be placed together in an adoptive or long term foster placement I would need to be satisfied that they have progressed to such an extent that the same result would not occur. Sadly, whilst progress has been made, these children are still far from presenting as a manageable sibling group as the evidence of the foster carer demonstrates, and the mother concedes. Accordingly, I am driven to the conclusion that they could not be cared for together as a sibling group of three by anyone and simultaneously have their individual welfare needs met as they require and deserve.
115. In this case, having conducted the balancing exercise I conclude that there is no realistic prospect of Y and Z being safely returned to their parents' care or with any extended family member in any meaningful timescale, and that their need for stability and permanence can only be met in an adoptive placement. All three children have suffered significant harm and the effects of that harm is noticeable in their behaviour. I conclude that the only hope of meeting their welfare needs throughout their lives is for them to be parented by other adults, and for a permanent placement to be found as soon as possible. I therefore make a final care order in respect of Y and Z, and, having concluded that the welfare of both Y and Z throughout their lives requires me to dispense with the parents' consent to placing them for adoption, I make a placement order authorising the local authority to place Y and Z for adoption.
116. In respect of X, I adjourn the application for a care order in her case to await the outcome of her placement with MA and the full fostering assessment. That application is to be re-listed for final hearing reserved to myself.
117. I invite the advocates to draft any necessary directions and the orders arising from this judgment. The Findings of Fact made in satisfaction of the threshold criteria are to be prepared and annexed to the court order. I invite the advocates to agree between themselves, if possible, which paragraphs of this judgment should be disclosed to the maternal grandparents to enable them to understand my decision in the interests of fairness, openness and transparency.
118. I am very aware in preparing this judgment that the requirements explained by the Court of Appeal for a fully reasoned judgment mean that this court must be frank and clear in its analysis. That involves me saying things which this family will undoubtedly have found distressing and difficult. I regret making their distress worse. It is, however, unavoidable that the court has to set out in full its reasons for making this life-changing decision for Y and Z. The reasons for my decision, however difficult to listen to, have to be fully recorded.