England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges)

IN THE FAMILY COURT AT WREXHAM
(Sitting at Rhyl County Court)
IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN ACT 1989
AND IN THE MATTER OF A, J, A and K (CHILDREN)

		24th September 2015

JUDGMENT 24^th September 2015

HIS HONOUR JUDGE GARETH JONES:

1. I have before me applications by X County Council relating to a sibling group of four children. The applications are supported by the Children's Guardian, and by their father, but they are opposed by the children's mother.
2. The Local Authority has been represented by Miss Guirguis. The mother has been represented by Mr Dodd, the father who shares parental responsibility for the children has been represented by Mr Jamieson. The mother and father have been present throughout the hearing. The mother was present until a moment ago when I announced my decision; she has now decided to leave the Court precincts.
3. The children, Ax, born 14^th December 1999, who is fifteen years-old; J, born 14^th November 2002, who is twelve years-old; Ad, born 13^th July 2005, who is ten years-old; and K, born 11^th December 2007, who is seven years-old, are represented by their Guardian, Miss Lisa Hill, and by their solicitor, Miss Brake.
4. The hearing began on Monday 21^st September 2015, and it concludes today, Thursday 24^th September 2015.
5. In addition to the relevant documentation which I have considered I have heard oral evidence from:

(i) the key social worker, Miss Jones;

(ii) the mother; and

(iii) the Children's Guardian.

The father did not give oral evidence in the course of this hearing.

6. Ax attended on the first day of the hearing. She was present with the Guardian and the Children's Solicitor in an interview with me where she expressed her wishes and feelings, and the procedure followed the Guidelines for Judges Meeting Children [2010] 2FLR 1872. There is a note which has been taken of Ax's wishes and feelings, and those were recorded in the usual way.

The background

7. These parents have eight children in total. There are four older children, B, Am, G and N, who are not the subject to these applications.
8. The family who live in Y [area given] have been the subject of local authority involvement since approximately 2001, although I note there was a referral about domestic violence between the parents in 1997, and a warning was given to the parents about an absence of supervision in the year 2000.
9. There is no dispute by the parents that the threshold of significant harm has been crossed. The mother's admissions set out in her Threshold Concessions Document indicate the significant areas of parental deficiency. The children were exposed to escalating domestic violence with the children being assaulted in some instances.
10. The father drank alcohol to excess and misused illicit drugs, and could be verbally and physically aggressive. He has a number of previous convictions.
11. There was a history of familial sexual offending and neglectful parenting.
12. Perhaps most starkly of all, two of the children, B and Ax, were the victims of sexual assault, their brother Am being the perpetrator thereof. At Caernarfon Crown Court in April 2013, Am was convicted of rape and attempted rape in relation to his sister, B, and two counts of rape against his other sister Ax. There was a conviction with regard to a fifth count of attempted rape in relation to a third party child of thirteen, not a sibling.
13. These were specimen counts and they covered the period 2007 to 2010. Ax would have been twelve years-old as charged at the time, B would have been between thirteen and seventeen years-old. The father gave evidence for the prosecution, the mother provided evidence for the defence, her son, Am, the defendant being given a custodial sentence by His Honour Judge Melfyn Hughes QC.
14. These events are referred to in Detective Constable Karen Morgan's letter of 3^rd May 2013, which has been considered during this hearing. The mother did not adopt a neutral stance between the children, on any view her actions favoured her son, Am. Am is potentially eligible for release next year.
15. The threshold of significant harm is serious and extensive in this case. Statutory intervention with a sibling group of eight children is always difficult for a local authority, and often where there is such a lengthy period of involvement by a local authority the reasons for inactivity multiply.
16. The lessons described by Bracewell J, as far ago as Re E [2000] 2 FLR 254 often have not been learned. Intervention applied like sticking plaster does not address the fundamental issues, and some families bump along the bottom for years without quite falling off the edge. The overall effect is to tolerate a barely acceptable status quo until a precipitating incident necessitates ultimate decisive action, often too late to address the damage which has already been done.
17. Children as part of a large sibling group have to be considered in the context of the whole family, and of the whole family history, because history has a pattern of repeating itself in a recognisable way. For instance, the sexual offending within this family is evident in more than one generation as appears from the Threshold Document, to which I have already referred.
18. The Unified Assessment/Application Document (see E23 to E48) sets out the salient features giving rise to these proceedings, and the precipitating events are noted therein. It is depressing to see that five separate Initial Assessments were undertaken between 2008 and 2014, in relation to this family. There are three separate Core Assessments between 2009 and 2014. The process of assessment with this family has become almost institutionalised. The mother in her responses, and in her replies in the witness box, has clearly mastered much of the social work jargon to which she has been exposed over the years.
19. In October 2014, statutory proceedings were recommended, this view being supported by the Dyfed Powys Police, largely because of the events which led to Am's prosecution in 2013 (see E2).
20. A period of Child Protection Registration had ended in September 2013 (see E9).
21. By September 2014, a further Child Protection Registration occurred, and a Legal Planning Meeting was recommended. Apparently the Area Manager did not deem this to be urgent, given the child protection plan in place (see E10).
22. In relation to these matters the children's solicitor has sought permission to disclose these, and indeed other relevant case papers, to the Official Solicitor.
23. On 10^th February 2015, the PLO Procedure was applied, and in April 2015, (after these applications were issued) I made Interim Care Orders with regard to all four children on 30^th April 2015, after a contested hearing where the social worker, the mother and the then acting Guardian gave oral evidence. I delivered a judgment which made reference to the precipitating events.
24. The children were removed into foster care after that hearing, which occurred at Mold Court Three. The mother was distraught and abject at that hearing, and she gave every indication of wishing to fight to recover her care of the children. I have been surprised, therefore, by the mother's subsequent conduct.
25. Police assistance was required to assist with the removal of the children, and understandably the children were upset and unhappy as a result of my decision. That, however, was not a final decision as the then Guardian, Miss Kay, indicated under her section dealing with parental capability (see paragraph 5.1 of her first report). Removal provided the opportunity for further assessment of parental and maternal capacity and capability.
26. The children did not settle easily into their placements. I need not particularise the difficulties, however, J and Ad were separated, as were Ax and K. Ax in particular was not compliant in foster care and she would abscond, and ultimately she left, staying with members of the extended family before finally settling with her father where she currently remains.
27. K, Ad and J are now all separately placed with local authority foster carers who are eligible potentially to be their long-term foster carers, subject to matching.
28. In July 2015, the Interim Care Order with regard to Ax was discharged. The Interim Care Orders with regard to the other three children have remained in force.
29. The children are more settled in their current placements, and they have made some progress, but there have still been difficulties along the way. By way of illustration only, on 24^th June 2015, Ad walked to his family home to see the family dog, and that was despite the opposition of the supervising workers during a contact visit, and the Police were called to retrieve Ad. On 13^th July 2015, J's behaviour at contact resulted in the Police being called over damaged property (see E76 and E77).
30. These children can be influenced and there is a fragility about their circumstances which can very easily be upset.
31. It is obvious that each subject child can be affected, either by parental behaviour, parental absence, or inter-sibling behaviour, including messages imparted by the older siblings who can exert influence on the younger children. There are also divided loyalties with regard to each parent amongst the sibling group as a whole.
32. On the one hand Ax is loyal to and has regard for her father; on the other hand she told me that the mother should not have the care of her two brothers and sisters. B's relationship with her mother appears to have completely broken down. On the other hand, the key social worker, Miss Jones, told me that the three younger children miss their mother and ideally they would want to live with her, although they were accepting of their current placement and they are starting perhaps to make some emotional connections there. J on the other hand, has been resistant to contact with his father, although the situation appears to be improving.
33. There is an obvious risk that the subject children may become caught in some emotional cross-fire, hence the Local Authority will have to navigate the future requirements for contact, if its plans are approved. I cannot possibly foresee the multiple developments which might occur in future years.
34. In these circumstances, and with conflicting pressures from eight siblings and two parents, the Local Authority will have to balance the various considerations in organising the quantum of inter-sibling and parental contact. Too little contact can create tension and unhappiness, too much can be destabilising. Often the changes have to be reactive. Usually the statutory review process provides the vehicle for consideration of the various competing demands rather than the Court arena.
35. I note these general considerations because of Ax's stated desire to see J, Ad and K more than once per month (every two weeks). Prima facie this might not be unreasonable, but Ax's need for contact must be balanced with the wishes and the welfare interests of J, Ad and K. Ax herself appeared to recognise that while K might wish to see her (Ax) more often, this might not be so for Ad and J.
36. This is but one illustration of the difficulties; the permutations with regard to B, G and N are potentially endless. I have noted Ax's wishes and the Local Authority are aware of them, but I would not translate that wish into a defined and fixed contact provision.
37. Following two initial contact visits after the Interim Care Orders were made, the last on 18^th May 2015, which the mother admitted to me was of poor quality, the mother left the jurisdiction of England and Wales, she told me on 23^rd May 2015.
38. Even before 23^rd May 2015 she had visited Northern C [name of country given] between 4^th May and 13^th May 2015. She told me in detail in the witness box about her movements from May 2015 to 15^th September 2015, when she returned last week in time for the IRH hearing. Broadly the mother has spent her time in Northern C [name of country given] and via T, in B [name of countries given] for this period. Generally she has spent the time with her partner of twelve months standing, Mr MC.
39. Occasionally, and for more limited periods of time she has been in the United Kingdom. The mother had suggested that she might return to the United Kingdom on 8^th June 2015. She did not do so. Ax believed her mother was coming home to the United Kingdom. The mother also posted a message on Facebook that Ax's cat was going to be sold, and when Ax realised that her mother was not returning home as she expected on 8^th June 2015, she absconded from her foster placement. Even the mother herself in the witness box could appreciate the connection between Ax's behaviour and her disappointment at being let down.
42. On 24^th August 2015, the mother's solicitors wrote to the Local Authority seeking contact on the mother's behalf. The mother said in the witness box that this was actually done in error by her solicitors, and the request was withdrawn the following day. As I have said, the mother returned last week in readiness for the IRH hearing.
43. This conduct has left the children in limbo. The mother was in contact with Ax by Facebook, because Ax told me so. Ax told me that she was not really concerned about her mother, she knew her mother was with her boyfriend. Ax appeared unconcerned by this maternal "sabbatical" abroad when I saw her on Monday of this week, and that in itself speaks volumes.
44. The younger children did not have Ax's degree of understanding. Ad, J and K have been provided with little concrete information about their mother's intentions and her whereabouts, because the picture has been so uncertain and fluid. Their contact with their mother ended on 18^th May 2015, and the Local Authority's reintroduction of the mother's contact has been delayed, not least by this hearing this week.
45. The mother's departure has had other consequences:

(i) the Local Authority's assessment of the mother's parenting capabilities during the currency of the Interim Care Orders has not occurred because of the mother's absence, nor has a Psychological Assessment been undertaken; and

(ii) the mother has lost her council accommodation in Z [area given], which has been repossessed.

46. When the mother left to go abroad I was told by her that N was in occupation of this property. The family cat and the family dog were also there. Subsequently the property was trashed and damaged; I was told about £40,000 worth of damage had been done. There were arrears of rent. The mother's rehousing prospects with this particular local authority, I would have thought, are particularly slim.
47. When the mother gave her evidence in Court she gave as her address a location in B [name of country given] and this illustrates starkly the difficulty with regard to the mother's case in respect of reunification, to which I shall return.

The Local Authority's Plans and the position of the parties

48. The Local Authority's case is that the mother's history, and her actions over the last four months or so, have ruled her out as a "realistic" option as a carer for the children.
49. The father has never put himself forward as a carer for all children. He has Ax at home and he would like to have contact with the other children, and indeed contact has been reintroduced between him and the children, J being the most resistant. However, there are some signs of improvement there also.
50. As I have mentioned already, initially provision was made by me for a Psychological Assessment of the mother and the family by a Dr Alexander, pursuant to section 38(6) Children Act 1989. Dr Alexander withdrew due to ill health, but a substitute might well have been identified were it not for the mother's disappearance as I have mentioned already.
51. The Local Authority do, however, have a wealth of information about the mother and her circumstances, and in essence the Local Authority contends that this information, coupled with the mother's own actions in leaving the children, departing from the jurisdiction for such an extended and crucial period during these proceedings, speaks volumes for the mother's commitment, and her inability to put the children's needs before her own.
52. It is said by the Local Authority that the mother could not safely care for the children, and the Local Authority say that without any other familial carer in prospect, the proportionate outcome for J, Ad and K is by way of foster care under a Final Care Order, with Ax remaining with her father.
53. So far as Ax is concerned, she will remain with her father subject to a twelve-month Supervision Order, rather than under the umbrella of section 17 Children Act 1989 "Child in Need" status. The 16+ (Leaving Care) services would be made available to Ax and there can be a recording to that effect, however, the elements of child protection in Ax's case point towards the need for a Statutory Order. Ax herself wished to be the subject of a Supervision Order as she explained to me on Monday of this week.
54. There is a significant child protection component in Ax's case historically, and perhaps that will rear its head again in the near future. Am may shortly be due for release. It is more than possible that he may gravitate towards the Z area [name of area given]. Even via prison there are a number of familial conduits for relaying information and messages, and Ax is by no means insulated from potentially harmful influences. The making of a Statutory Order will underline the need for local authority assistance and vigilance.
55. So far as the other children are concerned their current placements are recommended by the Local Authority in their Final Care Plans.
56. The father, who has been more assiduous and committed to contact, is to be afforded contact at least seven times per year with the children.
57. The mother's contact is proposed no less than four times per year, but subject to some important expressed pre-conditions to ensure regular and committed attendance.
58. Parental contact arrangements, and contact arrangements generally are subject to periodic statutory review.
59. The mother suggested indirect contact by Facebook, Skype or by telephone. This is potentially destabilising. It is supervised contact which is proposed by the Local Authority. Indirect contact of the kind proposed by the mother in paragraph 5 of her final statement, and from the witness box, simply cannot by adequately policed. There was at least one episode where J appeared to be upset by telephone contact with his mother during the currency of these proceedings, although the mother told me from the witness box that J had actually been upset by meeting his father, rather than the telephone contact with her.
60. Under section 31(3A) Children Act 1989 the Court's scrutiny of the Local Authority's Final Care Plan is centred around the "permanence provisions" of the Final Care Plans. The Court must consider contact and invite comment under section 34(11) Children Act 1989. Unless the Court makes a defined provision with regard to contact that is the extent of the Court's scrutiny.
61. Generally the father and the Guardian support the Local Authority's Plans. The mother, however, wishes to resume her care, at least of the three younger children. She asks for that to be considered immediately, or following an adjournment for a period of six months or so. In any event she would wish to have contact six or seven times per annum as a minimum (see paragraph 6 of her final statement and her evidence in the witness box), and as a matter of principle she would like to have parity with the father, seven times per year.

The legal provisions that I must apply

62. Before I can make any Care Order or a Supervision Order, the threshold of significant harm under section 31(2) Children Act 1989 must be established. The mother's Concessions Document crosses the threshold, and the father accepts that document.
63. The Local Authority sought for other threshold findings on a balance of probabilities. As I have said, the mother and the father agree that the threshold is crossed. The father also agrees that Care Orders should be made, whereas the mother does not.
64. The evidence in relation to an allegation at paragraph 9(d) of the Local Authority's Case Summary, insofar as it refers to Mr C, while it may indicate that he is "a risky individual", it does not establish that he "should have no contact with children". I would make no findings under paragraph 9(d). This should not be taken as any kind of judicial enforcement for Mr C, or his suitability, however, there is no evidence that he is a Schedule 1 offender, there is no relevant non-conviction information about him available to me, and his involvement in his own previous proceedings involving this local authority is not the subject of any adverse finding made by a Court (so far as I am aware).
65. Accordingly, the Local Authority's evidence about this assertion does not cross the appropriate civil standard of proof.
66. Furthermore, and in general, I have to decide whether on the individual facts of this particular case the concessions made by the mother are sufficient to meet the justice of the case, and the best interests of the children. In some instances the concessions offered provide an adequate basis for the threshold criteria, and it is unnecessary in those circumstances to go further, and to litigate over the exact detail of parental abuse, or unsuitable/inadequate care of the children concerned, Re M [1999] 2 FLR 728 page 734G, the judgment of the then President, Lady Butler-Sloss.
67. In other instances the concessions may not meet the requirements of the case. Do the allegations in paragraph 9(a) to 9(c) make any difference:

(i) to the placement outcomes in this case;

(ii) to the contact arrangements;

(iii) to the therapeutic requirements of any of the children; and

(iv) do they provide a different kind of threshold risk to that already identified?

68. Miss Guirguis did not persuade me that paragraph 9(a) to 9(c) involved any of these considerations. The mother's absence of emotional support for her children is evident more recently in her departure abroad during these proceedings. That is relevant to section 1(3) and not section 31(2) Children Act 1989. That is a finding that I make, save as aforesaid the threshold is established on the basis of the mother's Concessions Document.
69. The threshold therefore being established, next I must scrutinise the Local Authority's Care Plans as indicated already, applying the paramountcy of the children's welfare, and the so called 'welfare checklist' provisions under section 1 Children Act 1989. The children's Convention Rights being engaged, these plans have to be a proportionate response to their welfare needs, Re C & B [2001] 1 FLR 611.
70. Ax's residence with her father, accompanied by a Supervision Order for twelve-months, and the foster care of the other three children might prima facie be a proportionate response, if the children do not return to parental care and without an alternative familial carer being in prospect. The Local Authority is under a duty to provide an alternative family life. This is not a placement by way of adoption and parental responsibility is preserved.
71. In those cases where there is only one "realistic" alternative a "pros" and "cons" analysis of the various options is not required. The Court should satisfy itself that the one realistic option is in accordance with the child or the children's best interests, Re R [2015] 1 FLR 715.
72. It has been indicated in the Court of Appeal (see Re Y [2015] 2 FLR 615) that where there were two realistic options, one for familial care and one for foster care, then the more rigorous process suggested by Re B-S [2014] 1 FLR 1035 and CM v Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council [2015] 2 FLR 290 was applicable, and the five-fold judicial decision making process did apply. I summarise (see paragraph 24 of Re Y):

"The process of deductive reasoning involves the identification of whether there are realistic options to be compared. If there are a welfare evaluation is required. This is an exercise which compares the benefits and the detriments of each realistic option, one against the other by reference to the section 1(3) factors. The Court identifies the option that is in the best interests of the children, and then undertakes a proportionality evaluation to ask itself the question whether the interference in family life involved by that best interests option is justified".

73. The final statement of the key social worker (see E84 to E86) does contain such a "pros" and "cons" analysis for each child, although some of the options canvassed are plainly unrealistic, for example, adoption and placement with the extended family where no such candidate is available.
74. The Guardian in her final report has no separate "pros" and "cons" schedule, however, section 3 of the Guardian's report makes reference to a Parenting Capacity Analysis, and suggests that reunification with the mother is not a "realistic" outcome in her view. Accordingly, believing as she does, that the Local Authority's Plans are in the best interests of the children (long-term foster care for three of them, and accommodation with the father for the fourth child), that would in the Guardian's view (I infer) be a proportionate outcome in this particular instance. That in essence is the nature of the Guardian's recommendation to this Court.

The mother's case

75. The mother at paragraph 4 of her final statement says:

"I would wish to see the children on a regular basis, but accept given my circumstances it would not be possible for monthly contact to take place. I would wish for contact to take place during or around about each of the school holidays. I anticipate that if the children are not to return to my care I may not be within the United Kingdom. If this is the case I would wish for contact to be scheduled at times outside of the school holidays, as I envisage the travel costs will inflate significantly during school holidays".

At paragraph 9 of her statement she says:

"I left the UK in mid-May. I had found the ongoing proceedings to be overwhelming. I had intended leaving the country for a short period of time with a view to returning in early June. It is with regret that I have to say that I did not return, but this was due to various factors including stress, hypertension and anxiety in respect of ongoing proceedings. When I last returned I felt inundated with calls and requests by all parties, including the Local Authority, the Court, my solicitor, etc., and I found the whole process to be deeply upsetting and stressful".

At paragraph 10 of her statement she says:

"From May up to very recently I have been in Europe. I spent most of the time with my partner in B [name of country given] I had an opportunity of work in B [name of country given] and it may well be that I remain there. I say this because if my children cannot return to my care I have very little reason to remain in the United Kingdom. I have returned due to ongoing proceedings and felt that it was necessary for me to provide parties, and indeed the Court with an update in respect of my position in relation with the ongoing proceedings".

76. Paragraph 9 clearly shows that the mother cannot prioritise the children's needs. Even accepting for these purposes how upset the mother may have been by removal, how much greater would the children's upset have been? She is the adult, they are the children. She should display more adult fortitude and despite the difficulties retain her commitment to the children in their hour of need.
77. Under the original Interim Care Plans the mother was expected to see the children twice per week. Instead, as I have indicated, there have been only two contacts in total.
78. Paragraph 4 and 10 clearly indicate that the mother has made alternative plans which she amplified in the course of her oral evidence. The mother's partner (Mr C) renovates/builds properties in Northern C or B [names of countries given], or he has an inheritance from his own mother upon which he lives. The mother is in a serious relationship with Mr C, "we are committed to each other".
79. If the children were returned to the mother's care, she and Mr C would relocate to the United Kingdom, in the M area [name of town given], initially staying with family members there while they searched for suitable property. The three younger children would move there. I was a little uncertain about the mother's plan with regard to Ax.
80. There are significant difficulties with this proposal over and above the mother's poor parenting history, evident over years and not months, and her absent commitment over the recent months.
81. Firstly, the children have all of their links in Z [name of area given]. Their birth father and their siblings are all there, and such a move would be hugely upsetting. The children would move from their specialist school [names given] and since their older siblings and birth father are located in Z [name of area given] the familial contact arrangements would be severely disrupted. Such a move, far from enhancing their family life, might be viewed as potentially being more damaging to it.
82. Secondly, during the mother's twelve-month relationship with Mr C to date, I was told he had been partly in the United Kingdom and in part in B [name of country given]. It was Mr C who located the property for them in B [name of country given]. In March 2015 they decided "to have a long distance relationship". That was the mother's evidence to me, yet by May 2015 the mother had moved to live with Mr C.
83. There is no indication that the children have any significant emotional relationship with Mr C at all. There have been no requests for contact by him, nor by the children to see him. If he is to be so pivotal a figure in the children's future lives as the mother proposes:

(i) that will be another upheaval for the children;

(ii) it is likely to incur the father's opposition, and I suspect Ax's opposition as well; and

(iii) Mr C has not supplied any statements of evidence/information for assessment, nor has he attended Court as the mother's joint future carer. How could I entrust these three needy children to his joint care without such essential preliminary steps being undertaken?

84. If the mother did not secure the children's return to her care then she made clear she would return to B [name of country given] to be with Mr C, perhaps as soon as next week. I was a little unclear about her precise timescales. There is after all, little to keep the mother here (I was told). She has employment as a teacher of English lined up in B [name of country given], and she has been reflecting over her past and her future over the last four months or so.
85. If she returned to B [name of country given] she would travel to the United Kingdom to see the children, and as I have said already, she would like parity with the father with regard to contact provision. But the precise organisation of this contact appears to be somewhat fluid, the contact being concentrated whilst she (the mother) is available in the United Kingdom. There was little thought given to making these arrangements at regular intervals, providing a predictable routine for the children.
86. The mother also indicated that she would like telephone and Skype contact on a weekly basis. This, I believe, could potentially be extremely destabilising for the children. I have seen one of the cards recently prepared by the mother; some of the content is perfectly suitable, some of it is unsuitable and emotionally loaded.
87. The mother told me "I am concerned about J, he's not managing without me". This concern has not resulted in any concrete action by the mother to maintain contact with her troubled son in the course of these proceedings.
88. In a number of respects the mother's evidence was wholly unconvincing. Her motivation for her departure abroad was:

(i) a desire to give her and the children time to settle, and for her own reflection;

(ii) an inability to cope with information overload from the Local Authority, and her concern about Ax absconding;

(iii) her belief that contact was negative for the children and damaging. I observe that if this was indeed the mother's perception, she as the children's mother had a responsibility to try and improve the quality of the contact with the children, and work with the Local Authority to secure this objective. Her disappearance could only serve to worry and unsettle her children rather than reassure them;

(iv) she indicated that she suffered from hypertension in C [name of country given], not incidentally corroborated by any medical certificate, and in any event this appeared to be a temporary malaise, lasting no more than a month, and not an explanation for the totality of the mother's absence; and

(v) she complained about a lack of local authority support and difficulty in contacting social workers. This latter feature would hardly be improved by her foreign defection.

89. The mother could not explain why she did not tell the children about her whereabouts. Her answer was a straightforward "I don't know". The mother is a responsible adult, she has made choices and these choices have consequences. I can only assume that she has chosen to be with Mr C for most of the summer, and to give priority to that and to her relationship with him, and not her children's interests or their welfare in the United Kingdom.
90. Mr Dodd put the mother's case on placement on the following basis; that either there should be an immediate return of the children to the mother's care (as outlined already) or alternatively there should be an adjournment of these proceedings for six months to allow the mother an opportunity to demonstrate a change.
91. At some point in the future the children may well gravitate back to the mother's home. If changes are made the mother may well at some point apply for discharge of any Care Orders. A delay of six months would not be in these children's best interests, and bearing in mind her conduct which I have outlined over the last four months or so, I have no confidence that the mother would be able to, or even be motivated to, attempt the very considerable change in attitude and behaviour which is necessary in this case.
92. As recently as 9^th September 2015, the mother apparently told the Guardian that she might not attend the Final Hearing, "There was no point in attending".
95. The next six months may (if he is released) represent the lead-up to Am's re-emergence as a factor of risk for his younger siblings. The mother's attitude towards Am is highly ambivalent, "I don't know if I'm going to see Am when he is released". There has been contact between them (as she told me in the witness box) by letter and by prison visits.
96. The risks presented by Am remain. The fractured family dynamics create another risk of disturbance and potential harm for these children. The next six months may well be a troubled period indeed.
97. In any event, the single most significant recent element of any assessment process has been the mother's departure, to which I have already referred. With such recent fickle commitment indicated during the currency of these proceedings, allied to the chronic and serious history of defective and substandard parenting evident in this case, how on earth could the mother resume safe care of three or four children?
98. The Local Authority maintains that these children are making progress, and that should be allowed to continue without being placed in jeopardy.
99. The Guardian in her final report (see H25) says:

"Unfortunately the fact of the matter is that Mrs W has been residing out of the country for several months now, indicating that she is choosing to remain away from her children. In my opinion these are not the actions of a parent who is genuinely seeking to be reunited with their children. Whilst I do not doubt that Mrs W loves her children, it is my view that she is unable to prioritise their needs and take the necessary steps required to work with the Local Authority, and commit to being a stable, reliable and available parent. This in my opinion rules her out as a viable long-term care option for the children."

She goes on to say:

"All three children have what I consider to be additional needs for stability, appropriate boundaries and positive role modelling in a safe, nurturing home environment with carers who are able to recognise and respond appropriately to their needs."

I accept that evidence.

100. K probably is the least damaged of the three children, J and Ad more so. The boys have special educational needs; J has been referred to the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services under the care of Dr Hayes, but no diagnosis of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder has been made (see K16).
101. Ad too has a number of issues. His aversion to being touched, for example during an abdominal examination by Dr Manns, a Paediatrician, and his aversion to washing is noted (see K9(b)). These are not normal and healthy reactions and I ask myself what has led to this reaction and this behaviour by Ad?
102. The three children require careful, attentive and nurturing parenting; 'good enough' parenting is not sufficient. In any event, it is questionable whether even 'good enough' parenting has been afforded to all of the children of this family consistently throughout their childhood.

Conclusion

103. I consider the 'welfare checklist' in relation to the mother's case.
104. The children I accept wish to be with her.
105. Their physical/emotional needs would not be met in her care.
106. The children have suffered significant harm attributable to parental conduct; that has been serious and longstanding and the risks remain.
107. The mother's parental capabilities, always uncertain and inadequate, have shown a significant deterioration over the past summer. The removal of the children in April 2015, far from acting as a catalyst for improvement by the mother has seemingly released her from all responsibility, and she has decided to move abroad with her partner.
108. In foster care there is a better prospect that the children's needs will be met during their remaining adolescence. This is the last opportunity to repair the damage which has been done. This process will not be easy. There will be undoubted set-backs along the way, but these children need a break from parental care. They need to make progress in school, they need a calm and supportive home environment, they need individual attention as the sole sibling in a household rather than competing for attention and being forgotten and neglected.
109. If I were to adjourn this case I do not even know whether the mother would stay in this country during any such assessment period of six months. This would create false hope for the children, which I believe would be unlikely to be realised.
110. There is, in my judgment, only one "realistic" option in this case and that is in accordance with the children's welfare, and that is a proportionate outcome. Even if I am wrong about that conclusion the "pros" and "cons" evaluation leads me to precisely the same conclusion.
111. Accordingly, having found the threshold to be established. I approve the Local Authority's Final Care Plans for J, Ad and K. I make Final Care Orders with regard to those three children. I record that the threshold is established on the basis of the mother's Concessions Document.
112. Insofar as Ax is concerned there will be a Supervision Order for a period of twelve months and I give the Children's Solicitor permission to disclose relevant case papers to the Official Solicitor.

End of judgment