England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges)

THE FAMILY COURT SITTING AT READING

		8th To 10th December 2015

Introduction

I am dealing with applications for care orders concerning two children, MDJ and ADJ aged 2 years 6 months and 14 months respectively. In February of this year I conducted a fact-finding hearing concerning ADJ and made various findings. I adopt my judgement from that hearing for the purposes of this hearing. In that judgement I set out the background to proceedings in some detail and will not repeat it here. As a consequence of my findings in February, I found the section 31 threshold criteria met and therefore his hearing has been concerned with the welfare stage of considering what orders (if any) are appropriate for these children.

Parties' positions

The Local Authority seeks care orders for both children with final care plans which would place the children in Portugal with their paternal aunt and uncle (Mr and Mrs DJ) and allow for supervised contact with their parents. The proposals for contact have been refined at court and are that the parents shall have direct contact with the children in Portugal four times a year each for the first year. The Local Authority will fund the flights for JD for all four of these contact sessions, and two of the flights for JDJ, up to a maximum of £150 per flight. In addition, there will be Skype contact between the parents and the children twice a year.

The parents say that they have now separated and no longer present themselves as a couple. JD is no longer putting herself forward to care for the children. She has taken the no doubt very difficult and brave decision to accept that the timescale for her to make and sustain any necessary changes will be beyond what is appropriate for the children. She supports JDJ caring for the children in the first instance, but if that is not deemed suitable then she does not oppose the children moving to live with their paternal aunt and uncle in Portugal under care orders. However, if this happens she would like more contact than is currently proposed by the Local Authority. JDJ wishes for the children to be returned to his care. He does not accept the conclusions of the assessments in relation to him. If I do not accept that the children should be returned to his care, he does accept the placement of the children with the paternal aunt and uncle in Madeira.

The Guardian supports the Local Authority's case and says that the children cannot wait any longer for permanency.

Evidential summary

Following the fact-finding hearing, I gave directions timetabling the case to a final hearing. I gave the parties permission to instruct Dr Melissa Jackaman, Chartered Clinical Psychologist, to undertake an assessment of the parents in the light of my findings.

Dr Jackaman's report, dated the 14^th May 2015 is at E18-59, with a clarifying letter dated 3^rd July 2015 at E60 – 62. In her report and evidence before me, Dr Jackaman was of the view that JD has chronic problems in terms of managing her mood, impulsivity difficulties and anger issues. Dr Jackaman did not give an optimistic view on JD's ability to engage in therapy to address her difficulties. In terms of JDJ, Dr Jackaman was concerned about his ability to understand the emotional experience of others and his poor empathic ability. She recommended work with JDJ in relation to emotional parenting as well as around his expectations of the children and a parenting assessment to look further at these issues.

After receiving Dr Jackaman's report and noting her recommendations, the local authority sought clarification on the 26^th May 2015 of the parents' positions in the light of those recommendations, particularly from JDJ. His representatives informed the local authority on the 15^th June 2015 that the parents were separating and that he was putting himself forward as a sole carer for the children.

In view of the issues raised by Dr Jackaman in her report and the parents' position in response to these, the local authority proposed to undertake a further assessment of JDJ as a sole carer of the children, looking at the specific issues raised by Dr Jackaman, e.g. emotional availability, as well as test out the parents' ability and willingness to maintain the separation. The local authority therefore sought an extension to the timetable for the proceedings at the IRH on the 22^nd June 2015 in order to undertake this further assessment of the father. That extension was granted and the final hearing was listed for 28^th – 30^th September 2015.

The parenting assessments of the mother and the father were completed and filed [C185-211; C212-252]. Neither of the assessments recommended the children being returned to the care of either parent.

In respect of the mother the local authority concluded at [C210-211]:

"JD is a complex young woman who has many positive qualities behind her angry and hostile exterior. She sincerely wants to do the best for her children and for others to have faith in her capacity to succeed in this. She sincerely regrets all that has happened and expresses, at times, real disappointment that she allows herself to be 'wound up' and verbally lash out when she is upset. She has not come to terms with, or accepted, that ADJ, as a tiny baby, was deliberately hurt but has nonetheless taken positive steps to demonstrate her commitment to improving her parenting and to undertaking therapy to attempt to resolve her deep seated difficulties.

Currently JD lacks an understanding of how her 'ranting' and angry outbursts affect the children – it is both frightening and a very poor example of teaching her children to cope with difficulties in a negative way. It also carries the on-going risk of further physical harm if JD's anger was the trigger for ADJ's injuries.

However, my impression is that JD has an inner determination to continue on her path of self-improvement and it is very much to be hoped that she does succeed. Sadly, for MDJ and ADJ, I consider the timeframe to be too long, and the outcome too uncertain, to recommend that they wait for this process to happen.

JD does not seek to challenge those conclusions as I have noted earlier in this judgement.

In respect of JDJ the assessment was not positive and, at a court hearing on 30^th September before me, he made an application for a further assessment by an independent social worker [B64 – 67 and C305 – 311]; this was dealt with on submissions and I refused the application.

During the course of the assessment of JDJ, it became apparent that the paternal grandparents, who live in Spain, and the paternal uncle and his wife, HDJ and JuDJ, who live on the Portuguese island of Madeira, wished to be assessed as alternative carers for the children. Contact was made and the paternal grandparents agreed to come to the UK on the 2^nd – 4^th of September 2015 in order for the assessment to be carried out. The social worker was also able to make contact with the paternal uncle and his wife by telephone and a discussion of the issues was undertaken.

Viability assessments of the paternal grandparents and the paternal uncle and his wife were completed. The assessment of the paternal grandparents [C253 – 267] did not consider them to be suitable long-term carers for the children and did not recommend further assessment. A copy of this assessment has been translated and sent to the paternal grandparents and they are aware of the final hearing date. A further letter was sent to them on 26^th November 2015 [C377] advising them if they wished to attend the final hearing they should let the local authority know by 3^rd December 2015. No further response from the paternal grandparents has been received.

The assessment of the paternal uncle and his wife, [C268 - 278], was positive and recommended full assessment. Enquiries were made with CFAB and ICACU, which confirmed that it was permissible for UK social worker to conduct such an assessment in Portugal. At the hearing on 30^th September I therefore granted a further extension to the timetable to allow this assessment to take place.

The full assessment of HDJ and JuDJ was completed on 18^th November 2015 [C319 – C342]. The assessment was positive and recommended that MDJ and ADJ be placed with them in Madeira. To undertake the assessment two Oxfordshire social workers, Stephanie Fox and Alex Davies, visited the family in Madeira on 12^th – 15^th October 2015. They spent time in the family's home, observed Mr and Mrs DJ with their son RDJ, met three of the family's references, and visited RDJ's nursery and completed a reference from his school teacher. Local police checks have also been completed on the couple and a letter obtained from their GP confirming their good health.

Mr and Mrs DJ came to Oxfordshire 1^st – 4^th November 2015 in order to meet the children. They had supervised contact with the children on each day that they were here and they also met with the Independent Reviewing Officer and the Children's Guardian.

The Local Authority and the Guardian have concluded that Mr and Mrs DJ are very committed to the children, have a good understanding of the issues in this case, and have a strong support network. The assessment does however highlight some likely challenges for the placement. In particular the fact that the couple will be caring for three children under the age of 4, the change of language and culture for the children, the limited financial resources of the uncle and aunt, and the fact that this is an untested placement. In light of those challenges the local authority submits that it is vital that jurisdiction over the children is retained in the UK until the placement is established and secure. For this reason the recommendation is for the children to be made subject to full care orders and placed with Mr and Mrs DJ in Madeira as foster carers. Mr and Mrs DJ were approved by the Fostering Panel as local authority foster carers on 2^nd December 2015. It is hoped that there can be an application for the full care orders to be discharged within a year. If the placement breaks down the local authority's contingency plan is for the children to return to England and Wales and the local authority will apply for a placement order.

The proposed plan for the children to move to Madeira is for Mr and Mrs DJ and their son to travel to Oxfordshire 11^th – 18^th January 2016 for a period of planned introductions. A holiday home will be rented for the family to enable convenient contact to take place. The children will then return to Madeira with the family on 18^th January. Stephanie Fox and Alex Davies will visit the family in Madeira 21^st – 22^nd January 2016 and complete a placement planning meeting.

The local authority's full plans are set out in the final statement of Stephanie Fox at [C343 – 376] and MDJ's Final Care Plan at [D10 – 20] and ADJ's Final Care Plan at [D21 – 31], along with an updating position statement filed on behalf of the local authority on 3^rd December 2015.

The parent's final evidence is at C379 for JD dated 1^st December 2015, and C384 for JDJ dated 30^th November 2015. JD confirms her position to be one where she does not seek to have the children returned to her care but supports them returning to JDJ or being placed in Madeira with Mr and Mrs DJ if they cannot return to JDJ. She outlines the work that she has already started to address her issues and all parties accept that the early signs in relation to her are good, but there is still much work that she has to do.

JDJ argues in his statement that he is best placed to bring up the children. He does not agree with Dr Jackaman's assessment and in particular does not accept her conclusion that he lacks the ability to sensitively attune to the emotional needs of the children. He also disputes that he lacks basic parenting skills, stating that his skills as a parent "are more than adequate" (C385). If the children cannot return to live with him, he agrees with a placement with his brother and his wife in Madeira, that is with Mr and Mrs DJ. He raises concerns about the affordability of flights to Madeira for him in relation to the proposed contact in this placement.

The Guardian's final report is at E63-75. As I have already noted, she supports the Local Authority being granted full care orders and endorses the care plans to place the children with Mr and Mrs DJ, as well as agreeing that the revised contact proposals are appropriate.

Relevant legal considerations

I have had regard to Re R (clarifying the earlier case of Re B S) as well as the welfare checklist set out in section 1 of the Children Act 1989. As the final care plans involve placement outside of the jurisdiction, I have also had regard to s.33(7)(b) CA 1989 "where a care order is in force with respect to a child, no person may remove him from the United Kingdom without either the written consent of every person who has parental responsibility for the child or the leave of the court". By s.33(8) subsection 7(b) does not apply to arrangements for such a child to live outside of England and Wales (which are governed by paragraph 19 of Schedule 2).

Paragraph 19 of Schedule 2 of the Children Act 1989 states:

1. A local authority may only arrange for, or assist in arranging for, any child in their care to live outside England and Wales with the approval of the court.

2. A local authority may, with the approval of every person who has parental responsibility for the child arrange for, or assist in arranging for, any other child looked after by them to live outside England and Wales.

3. The court shall not give its approval under sub-paragraph (1) unless it is satisfied that

a. living outside England and Wales would be in the child's best interests;

b. suitable arrangements have been, or will be, made for his reception and welfare in the country in which he will live;

c. the child has consented to living in that country; and

d. every person who has parental responsibility for the child has consented to his living in that country.

4. Where the court is satisfied that the child does not have sufficient understanding to give or withhold his consent, it may disregard sub-paragraph (3)(c) and give its approval if the child is to live in the country concerned with a parent, guardian, special guardian, or other suitable person.

5. Where a person whose consent is required by sub-paragraph (3)(d) fails to give his consent, the court may disregard that provision and give its approval if it is satisfied that that person—

a. cannot be found;

b. is incapable of consenting; or

c. is withholding his consent unreasonably.

Findings

There are two options put before me in relation to the placement of MDJ and ADJ at this point and this is agreed by all parties. Option one is to return them to the care of their father, JDJ. Option two is to make care orders and endorse final care plans for them to be placed with their paternal uncle and aunt, Mr and Mrs DJ, in Madeira.

In relation to option one, returning the children to the care of their father would mean that they were being returned to the care of one of their parents. There is no doubt that both of their parents love their children. The issue is the extent to which JDJ can parent the children to a good enough standard, including keeping them safe from risk of future significant harm.

JDJ has been the subject of comprehensive assessment. Importantly that assessment has included a parenting assessment of him as a sole carer for the children. The conclusions of the parenting assessor highlight an inability on JDJ's part to be able to adapt his parenting techniques to suit the ages and understanding of the children: "At times JDJ has struggle to manage the competing needs of two young children and has been observed to talk to MDJ and ADJ as if they were older in terms of their understanding. There appears to be a significant difference in the children's level of cognitive development and JDJ's expectations of their behaviour, in particular with MDJ. An example of this is when JDJ is trying to explain to MDJ what is expected of him. Given that MDJ is only two years and two months old JDJ gives complicated explanations to MDJ when he is correcting him and MDJ loses interest in what is being said" (C221). The overall conclusion of the assessment notes the positive aspects of JDJ having separated from JD and having demonstrated an ability to meet the needs of both children during contact, as well as there being a mutually warm and reciprocal interaction between himself and the children at contact.. However, there are also significant negatives recorded, including that he is a possible perpetrator of serious injuries to ADJ, he is quick to anger, has a history of impulsive behaviour. He also has a very limited support network and that he lacks insight into the degree to which he needs professional support to moderate his feelings of anger and hostility (C250-251). The final conclusions are that "the risk of physical harm can only be confidently reduced where there is a real understanding of the experience of such harm, as seen through the eyes of the child, and an understanding of the triggers that might lead to similar harm taking place in the future…I am not confident that JDJ has the resilience to undertake full-time childcare, with all the stresses and strains that this involves, without being at real risk of losing his temper in ways that will, at the least, be emotionally harmful to the children and, at worse, may result in physical harm" (C252).

This assessment has to be read in conjunction with the expert evidence of Dr Jackaman who completed a full psychological assessment of JDJ in April this year and who also gave evidence to me in the course of this hearing. Her first report concluded that, whilst there were significant concerns relating to JDJ's "(perhaps now largely historic) impulse control difficulties; his tendency at times to justify aggression as a way to resolve conflict; and a joint degree of social and financial pressure that they (the parents) were under at the time. Sadly the majority of these issues remain unresolved with this couple and therefore many of these risk factors remain relevant, especially if they remain together. There does seem to be more optimism about JDJ's ability as a potential sole carer...I therefore think there is more scope for JDJ to be considered as a sole carer and safely parent the children (albeit with the above mentioned caveats about his own emotional functioning, parenting style, and untrusting nature which may prevent him from disclosing if he is not coping in the parenting role and asking for some support)" (E59). In May this year, there was therefore an expert opinion which indicated a potential for JDJ to be considered as a carer for the children if he addressed his issues. Dr Jackaman confirmed this in her addendum report dated 3^rd July 2015 and listed the necessary steps which JDJ would have to take in order for the Court to consider rehabilitation to his care, namely a comprehensive parenting assessment to address issues about his parenting style, a period of close supervision (ideally in a residential setting) to ensure that his parenting of the children is adequate and that he is coping well with the stress of being a sole parent, and he should engage in some sessions relating to dealing with anger and frustration and this needs to be tailored specifically to address the issue of frustrations raised within the parenting role. She also noted that it was important that his lack of empathic ability was considered and assessed as part of a parenting assessment (E62).

As a result of Dr Jackaman's written evidence, the Local Authority offered JDJ the options of a Parent and Child Foster Placement or a residential assessment. JDJ told me that he did not refuse to do this. However, it does seem clear that he raised a concern with the social worker about whether he could bring his fish with him. Clearly he feels very strongly about the fish as he told me that they were MDJ's fish and he got quite emotional when they were mentioned. However, it does seem a slightly odd order of his priorities that his first concern was about whether or not he could take the fish. The social worker was very clear that he did not refuse either option entirely. What she told me was that he was not keen on a Parent and Child Foster Placement and wanted to take his fish to a residential assessment. As she very fairly pointed out, these are scarce resources and when offered they are normally grasped with both hands by parents. I am very clear that JDJ seems to have put his concerns about the fish before his willingness to engage with a residential assessment. He also did nothing to chase that option after the initial reluctance which he had shown to the social worker. Rather, he seems to have waited passively. As Ms De Freitas for the Guardian noted in closing, the fact that he did not apparently have anyone else available to look after the fish does also raise a concern in my mind as to how effective his fledging support network in his new area actually is.

As I have already noted, JDJ does not accept the conclusions of the assessments. However, the parenting assessment and the psychological assessment both strike me as very balanced, noting considerable positives as well as the significant negatives in relation to him. The historic evidence also corroborates the conclusions which both assessments have reached, relying in fact on a considerable amount of self-reporting by JDJ about his actions in the past. It is also striking that he has belatedly sought some assistance from his GP and now the Elmore team with regard to his difficulties. I find that he could and should have sought this assistance much earlier, at least in July when Dr Jackaman gave her addendum report setting out clearly what work he needed to undertake. Whether he really understands why he has to do this work is not clear to me. Given his inability to accept the conclusions of Dr Jackaman, I remain concerned that he really doesn't have much insight as to why he needs to undertake work to address his issues with anger and frustration. This in turn may mean that the benefits of any such work will be limited for him. In any event, it is clear to me that he still has considerable work to do to address his issues and that the timescale for his doing so is uncertain and probably well beyond what is appropriate for his children who have now been involved in these proceedings for over a year.

From the tenor of his evidence to me and the way in which Mr Kent put JDJ's case, it also seems that JDJ believes that the Local Authority are saying that the children's welfare would be adversely affected by his being a sole parent who works. As I pointed out during the hearing, that is not actually the case which was being advanced by the Local Authority or the Guardian. The concern they have highlighted is that JDJ has a strong work ethic which has led him to work very long hours and he appears to have a very limited support network to help him manage work and family life. JDJ told me that he would give up work to look after the children.

I think he rather misses the point which is that whether he is working and needs to juggle complex childcare arrangements which all working parents (single or otherwise) inevitably have to, or whether he is not working and looking after the children alone, each brings considerable stresses. His ability to manage stress appropriately and in particular in ways that do not expose the children to risk of significant harm whilst in his care is a key concern in this case. Added to the issues around his work or not working, there is also the fact that he has significant financial issues. Financial pressure was noted to be a factor in terms of the concerns present when ADJ was injured. I cannot therefore ignore the fact that he also has an additional pressure which in the past may well have contributed to the circumstances which led to either JDJ or JD injuring ADJ.

As noted by Stephanie Fox in her parenting assessment of him, she is "not confident that JDJ has the resilience to undertake full-time childcare, with all the stresses and strains that this involves, without being at real risk of losing his temper in ways that will, at the least, be emotionally harmful to the children and, at worse, may result in physical harm" (C251). Whilst his conduct during contact has not caused undue concern (even when he is noted to have attended angry or become frustrated he has not behaved in ways that have been harmful to the children in contact), there is a very worrying incident during MDJ's permanency medical which is recorded at C214 in Ms Fox's parenting assessment. He did not fully accept the description of his conduct, although he did accept that he had become annoyed and that there was an argument about vitamins and that he knew he was a bit arrogant. He also said that if he was showing anger in front of the Doctor and social worker, why wasn't he asked to leave? I think this comment demonstrates his lack of appreciation of the fact that the professionals concerned were no doubt trying to work with him and had to doubtless balance the risk of infuriating him further by asking him to leave against simply trying to carry on as best they could. It seems to me that this example amply demonstrates that JDJ simply does not appreciate how his behaviour when he is angry and frustrated comes across to other people and the impact that this would have upon them, particularly children. Until he is able to show that he has successfully tackled his issues with anger and stress management, I find that he remains at risk of causing the children significant harm through inappropriately manifesting his anger and frustration whilst they are in his unsupervised care.

In addition, the Local Authority and the Guardian have expressed concerns about JDJ's ability to work with professionals. JDJ told me that he was willing to do whatever was required for the children. He was also clear that he was able to work with the social worker as long as he was treated as a human being. Whilst everyone has the right to expect such treatment, I can find no evidence of JDJ being treated unfairly or inappropriately by professionals in this case. On the contrary, despite his sometimes aggressive and threatening behaviour towards them (witness the behaviour in LAC Reviews and towards Dr Smith), they have gone out of their way to continue to try to work with him. It is not a simple case of "miscommunication" either, as he alleged. His English is clearly very articulate and his frustration seems to come not from poor verbal communication but from his deeper issues with accepting advice. He has also not helped himself, for example, by failing tell the social worker when he was moving to his new flat and not seeking help with his debt management sooner. It seems to me as if he waits for the professional concerned to do something and then he responds, rather than taking action himself. He said that he did not ask for help with his debts because he had asked for financial help three times and it had been refused. Frankly his evidence about this was less than clear. He accepted that he had received financial help from the Local Authority twice and that he did not tell the social worker about his debts until she asked about a debt collection letter she could see in his papers. He said that if people were prepared to work with him, he was prepared to work with them. It seems to me as if JDJ would therefore only seek help reluctantly and on his own terms. That is simply not putting the needs of the children first and leads me to conclude that he would not actively seek help before problems became harmful to the children.

Weighing the advantages and disadvantages of the various options, there are some undoubted positives to a placement with JDJ for the children. They would be returning to live with one of their birth parents who they love and who clearly loves them. It is also accepted by the Local Authority that the parents have physically separated, even if they may retain some emotional ties and some contact with each other as a result of being the parents of these children. In the first instance, if it is safe to do so, any Court would prefer to place children with their birth parents. However, there are some very significant negatives which relate to JDJ's ability to parent to a good enough standard, and in particular regarding the risk of physical and emotional harm to the children if he were to be unable to manage his anger and stress issues. I have also previously found that ADJ suffered significant physical harm and that JDJ could not be ruled out as the perpetrator of that harm. In addition, he still has some issues around his basic parenting ability in terms of responding to the children in an age-appropriate manner and ability to empathise with the children. On balance I am forced to conclude that, until he tackles the underlying issues in relation to anger and stress, it simply would not be safe to return the children to his care and the negatives to the children in terms of their welfare therefore outweigh the positives.

As I have found that return to the care of JDJ is not appropriate in this case, the only other alternative is for the children to be placed with Mr and Mrs DJ in Madeira. The advantages of this placement are that it is a kinship placement which therefore enables the children to maintain a relationship with their family, including their parents. As noted by the Local Authority and the Guardian and I accept, Mr and Mrs DJ are very committed to the children, have a good understanding of the issues in this case and have a strong support network. The negatives in relation to this placement are that it would result in their having to parent three children under the age of four, deal with the children in this case adjusting to a significant change in culture and language and this is an untested placement. These negatives are ones which could be addressed with adequate support, and care orders, I find. I have noted the Local Authority evidence in relation to the hope that these care orders will in due course be replaced by some form of private law order made either in Madeira or this jurisdiction and I accept that this is appropriate only after the placement has essentially been tested under the proposed care orders. Mr Kent did raise the issue of uncertainty in closing on behalf of JDJ. I would remind him that a Court does not require certainty in relation to final care plans in public law proceedings and it has always been open to Local Authorities to amend care plans after final care orders have been made, or equally for placements to break down after final orders. What I do have to consider is whether this placement, on the current evidence before me, appears to adequately meet the long term needs of the children. I am very clear that the evidence does satisfy me of that in this case given the extremely positive assessment of Mr and Mrs DJ./

The Local Authority final care plans do show that they have thought carefully about the support that could be provided. Given the dual heritage of the children, their English language skills will need to be kept up and the provision of tutoring for all of the DJ family is an excellent one to assist with this. In addition, if the parents are able to engage with regular contact (both by travelling to Madeira and also via Skype), that will also help in this regard, as well as maintain their relationship to some extent. Regular contact with the birth parents is provided for, despite the distances involved. Although more contact would clearly be what the parents would like and no doubt the children would also want to see them, this does have to be balanced against the children's need for a secure and stable placement as noted by the Guardian and the social worker. I do find that the proposal for a minimum of four contact sessions per year for each parent adequately strikes that balance by allowing the children time to settle and adapt to their new family placement. In addition, I find that supervision of that contact is also required. I have not lost sight of the fact that I made serious findings against both of these parents concluding that either could have injured ADJ very seriously. It was cited on behalf of JDJ by Mr Kent that contact has been positive and I have noted that. However, this is in the context of supervised contact for short periods of time. In addition, both parents have significant challenges to overcome in respect of their issues with anger, stress and basic parenting such that unsupervised contact is not appropriate until those issues have been addressed.

In terms of the Local Authority support for face to face contact in Madeira, there remains an issue raised by JDJ about whether he will be able to afford the two additional return flights that the plan would currently require. It is clear that he does have debts and at present his income does seem to exceed his outgoings. However, he is working and did say himself that he hoped to improve his financial position by taking better paid work soon. It does seem reasonable to me to differentiate between someone such as JDJ who is working, albeit on a low income, and JD who is unable to work because of her work with Complex Needs. The financial support on offer from the Local Authority therefore seems entirely reasonable, even though JDJ is clearly going to have to budget carefully to ensure that he saves something towards flights. As was raised by Ms Harris for JD, the Local Authority setting the dates for contact as far ahead as possible will also greatly assist in this regard as it will enable both parents to search for the cheapest possible advance bookings for their flights.

Conclusions

Given my findings above, I have no hesitation in concluding that the welfare needs of the children when I consider the welfare checklist do not allow me to return them to JDJ's care. Those needs are best met in the proposed placement with Mr and Mrs DJ in Madeira under a care order and I will endorse the final care plans as amended. Considering the provisions of paragraph 19 of Schedule 2 of the CA 1989, that placement is also clearly in their best interests and I am satisfied that suitable arrangements have been made for their reception and welfare in Madeira; they also do not have sufficient understanding to give or refuse to give consent. I am also satisfied, given the evidence in the parent's final statements and their final positions in this hearing, that they consent to the children moving to Madeira.

I will therefore grant full care orders to Oxfordshire County Council for both children in this case and give permission for the children to live outside of England and Wales.