England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges)

IN THE FAMILY COURT
SITTING AT NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE


IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN ACT 1989
AND IN THE MATTER OF: Z & ORS (CHILDREN)

		The Law Courts The Quayside Newcastle-Upon-Tyne NE1 3LA
		15th July 2016

JUDGMENT

HIS HONOUR JUDGE SIMON WOOD:

Introduction

1. The court is concerned with the welfare of R, S, T, U, V and W. They are all the children of M, who was born in 1979 and so is in her 37^th year. In R's case her father is F1. In the case of S and T, it is F2 and in the case of U, V and W, it is F3. The children range in age as follows. R is shortly 17, S is 16, T is 14 years 8 months, U is 8 years 3 months, V 7 years 5 months and W 6 years 5 months.
2. Gateshead Council issued proceedings on 23^rd December 2015 seeking care orders in respect of all six children. As I will explain that no longer includes R and it now confirms that it seeks such orders with plans of long term foster care for all the five younger children, each to remain in their present separate placements. That plan is supported by their children's guardian, Laura Grundy, supported by the mother in respect of S and T but opposed by the mother, the only active respondent parent within this hearing, in respect of U, V and W. She seeks the return of those children to her care supported by her sisters, failing which she invites the court to place them with her sisters in whichever combination it thinks fit.
3. The only other party to the proceedings has been F2. I released his solicitor on the first day of the hearing. He currently has no relationship with his two children, who do not wish to see him, but simply seeks the opportunity, via the local authority, to demonstrate that he can repair the relationship.

Why has the local authority sought orders?

4. Why does the local authority say, as it does, that these children have suffered significant harm and were suffering significant harm when protective measures were taken and are likely to suffer significant harm if returned to the care of their mother, the likelihood of the harm being because the children will not receive the care that would be reasonably expected from a parent? The case can be summarised very shortly. It is one of chronic neglect which can be traced back to 2003, albeit it is highly likely that its origins lie in the children's mother's own dysfunctional childhood, making the depth of the concerns very longstanding indeed. The revised threshold responses narrowed very substantially the factual dispute because this has overwhelmingly been a case about welfare, but nevertheless the mother's responses to threshold, both as provided in writing and then in evidence, particularly in cross-examination, were directly relevant to the question of welfare and the issues that I have had to consider in addressing it as I will come to.
5. Before coming to the threshold, however, I need to set out enough of the history to enable those listening to understand how the present situation has been reached. I cannot do better than paraphrase Miss Lugg, counsel for the local authority, in her very detailed case summary, which by agreement avoided the need for any kind of local authority opening. The executive summary really is that there has been very long involvement with Social Care with ongoing concerns for the duration of the lives of each of these children. Support over the years has come via child protection plans, there were three between 2003 and 2007, child in need plans, at least three between 2008 and 2015, teams around the family, again at least three between 2011 and 2015, and the work of the family intervention project.
6. The recurrent history is of a mother who is able to demonstrate improved parenting during the times when support has been in place but, once withdrawn, change has not been sustained. Looking at the local authority chronology I can see nothing in terms of actual events in 2005, albeit the children then were subject to child protection plans, but to a greater or lesser extent concerns, and some really quite significant ones, feature every single year since 2003.
7. As I say, there has been a great deal of support offered during that time. Matters came to a head with a precipitating event on 7^th May 2015 when the mother, having fled her then partner, F2, and left the County Durham area, returned to Gateshead, whence she had come in January 2015, she says, to escape his domestic abuse. Whilst living in a flat in the Gateshead area a man who was suspected to be her partner, albeit she denies this, X, assaulted U. As a consequence of that assault the children were removed under police powers of protection and, with the mother's consent, they were thereafter accommodated where they have remained for the present time, with the exception of R who remained with her mother.
8. That is the executive summary, but it is important to understand more of the detail. The first child protection plan was in 2003, the categories were neglect and sexual abuse. A schedule one offender, a maternal uncle, was reported to be having contact with the children. That plan was closed but a further one was opened the following year for neglect and ran until 2006. A third plan in 2007 followed but despite ongoing concerns regarding the presence of the maternal uncle, home conditions and domestic abuse the case was in fact closed in 2008, U and V being born towards the end of that period.
9. In August 2009 a multi-agency risk assessment conference (MARAC) took place because of the reports of significant domestic violence occurring between the mother and F3 in the presence of the children. Mother underwent work at that time with Organisation A. She purported to have ended her relationship with F3 but then went on to give birth to W in February 2010. F3 is a man with a very significant history of offending, including arson where he tied up his girlfriend and father prior to setting their house on fire. Although that relationship ended the mother resumed her relationship with F2 in December 2009, an alcoholic with a history of domestic abuse. Although the local authority intervened and matters improved the local authority recommended that there be no contact between the children and F2.
10. There was a further referral in April 2011 from a speech and language therapist who raised concerns about lack of food in the house, the lack of specialist drinks available for V who needed them and the younger children all presenting as grubby. The recurring pattern repeated itself with matters improving and a team around the family being put in place, but in July 2012 the children were again in contact with F3 despite the agreement. Supervised contact was agreed after some assessment was carried out. A team around the family was initiated by the family intervention team but the following year an anonymous referral raised concerns that there was no food for the children in the house and the caller was concerned for the children during the forthcoming school holidays. It was known by the local authority that the mother was able to make the house presentable for planned visits, but reports continued to be received that there was simply no food in the house at all. A child in need assessment concluded, which had incorporated unannounced visits, but no concerns were revealed.
11. The family then moved to County Durham in 2013. There is a dearth of information as to what happened in Durham but this local authority was alerted to the family returning to the Gateshead area by Durham in January 2015 by a referral from the Organisation B, which had come from the school, around punctuality and presentation of the children. T was said to be unkempt, crying all the time. The mother reported that T had given her a black eye. It is said she refused a child in need assessment. That may be a matter of controversy to which I will return. A decision was made that the family could be managed with a team around it. A little later on, however, concerns continued to arise. In early May T was very emotional, cried often when discussing home issues at school. He admitted being angry and having hit his siblings. His presentation was one of neglect.
12. Matters came to a head on 8^th May when a referral was made by U's primary school that he had injured his hand on U's report because his "dad" had pushed a drawer onto it on purpose. A social worker visited the school. The man believed to be the mother's partner, X, was said by U to have been responsible for causing the injury when his mother was present. He and the other children were spoken to. It rapidly emerged they were sharing a single mattress on the floor, that there were no handles on the bedroom doors and U reported that if they needed to leave the bedroom, for example to go to the lavatory, their mother would slide a knife under the door to enable them to manipulate the door open.
13. As I have said, police powers were executed, the children were removed. When the house was inspected an additional concern was the complete lack of food available to the children. The state of the house, the poverty of resources, food, material as basic as beds and bedding, is graphically illustrated in a series of police photographs that were taken at the time.
14. At an early stage the local authority social worker met with the mother's sisters, MA1 and MA2, each of whom reported that they had had concerns about their sister's ability to care for the children and, as subsequently emerged, had been the authors of anonymous reports to the local authority from time to time. S disclosed at school in July 2015 that she had witnessed domestic violence at home with F2 strangling her mother and stabbing her mother between the eyes with a fork. She also said that it was her grandfather who was tied up in the house when the house was set on fire.
15. Placed together U and W's care was extremely problematic. They informed their foster carer that at home T, S and R all smoked and dropped ash on their heads. W said that he and V had set light to a mattress. U and W said that U had access to his aunt's stash of wine, which he drank. His aunt, MA4, and R drank Fosters together and their mother drank vodka and further disclosures of a similar nature were made. I will come to the children's behaviour, particularly that of U and W in due course, but perhaps the highlights are W threatening his foster carer with a knife and U, aged 7, head butting his foster carer.
16. By September the placement of T was under significant stress, with the carer not being able to cope either with his or S's behaviour, and it broke down. Contact was noted to be of poor quality. T was in a new placement and there was doubtful stability of that with him absconding and going to his mother's home. Indeed he admitted that he had been there on several occasions and on at least one at a time when his Schedule One offender uncle was present.
17. In November last year R reported to the social worker that she was pregnant. Her mother failed to attend the initial child protection conference with R for that unborn child, albeit did attend a later physiotherapy appointment. Although the intention had been to issue in October 2015, in fact proceedings did not commence until 23^rd December as I have mentioned. So far as R was concerned a plan was progressed for her whereby she moved out of her mother's home and into the home of her boyfriend's grandparents. She gave birth in late April to her daughter. It is pleasing to report that her plan has been adhered to. She and her baby thrive and, accordingly, the local authority seeks no orders in respect of R, albeit it remains involved in respect of her baby, who is not subject to any litigation.
18. A running issue throughout the history has been M's inability to comply strictly with the plans in place for the children. S's placement was put under stress due to the telephone contact between M and her, albeit the greater concern in the evidence I heard related to T, who has simply been helping himself to direct contact, at will, despite a written agreement in place and a clear plan designed to monitor it.

Threshold

19. The final composite threshold against that background therefore read as follows: first, at various stages since R's birth the children have been made the subject of child protection plans due to concerns about the mother permitting the children to have contact with their maternal uncle, neglect, home conditions described as filthy, lack of food available for the children, alcohol abuse and domestic violence and despite the high level of involvement she had not been able to sustain change and the children's needs had been neglected, thereby placing them at risk of harm. In her response at the beginning of this week the mother denied longstanding concerns but accepted that as at May 2015 home conditions were "inadequate" in respect of which the threshold response document seeks to blame the lack of local authority funding for that state of affairs.
20. Secondly, the mother has been involved in abusive relationships, particularly with F2 and F3, and the children have been directly exposed to the abuse perpetrated by those men. The mother accepted that abusive relationships occurred, albeit did not respond until giving oral evidence as to whether they had witnessed domestic violence when she accepted they had.
21. Thirdly, she has had on/off relationships with each of F2 and F3 in which alcohol abuse was a feature and she is criticised for prioritising those relationships over the welfare of her children, the local authority alleging she lacks insight into her own abuse of alcohol and the impact on the children. Whilst she accepted the abusive nature of the relationships she denied alcohol abuse.
22. Fourthly, it is said that the children have suffered neglectful care from the mother and her partners, with the children being inappropriately clothed, unhygienic, inappropriately fed. She relied upon S to attend to the care needs of the other children. V when taken into care was underweight with thin hair. Since being provided with appropriate sustenance, V's weight has increased and her hair thickened. M's response to that is it is only accepted in relation to May 2015.
23. Fifthly, it is said that she caused or permitted X to injure U by slamming a drawer on his hand. She denied being present when this occurred despite U saying she was a witness, thus putting the interests of her partner ahead of those of U. In her threshold response she accepted the allegation, although as the local authority pointed out, was not categoric in the admission. I will deal with this directly in the evidence.
24. Sixthly, the children had been required to sleep on mattresses on the floor and had been required to sleep in bedrooms whose door handles had been removed. This exposed them to significant risks, for example, had there been a fire, and additionally it was an emotionally abusive arrangement which would have upset the children. The mother accepts the allegation in relation to bedding, limited to a two month period prior to May. She denied that the children had to use a knife to leave the bedroom at night. In fact the absence of door handles was only accepted on being confronted by the police with their photographs showing that state of affairs and she continues to deny that the children had to use a knife to leave the room.
25. Seventhly, she had failed to supervise the children and failed to provide structures and routines for them to their detriment. For the first time mother accepted bad behaviour and aggression as well as fighting between the boys which she accepted she was unable to manage.
26. Eighth, it is said she failed to prioritise the needs of the children above her own needs and those of her partners, thus lacking the insight into the emotional needs of the children as demonstrated by the use of the word "dad" by the children to all men she appears to have introduced to them. Her response to that is that she accepts there were too many men involved with the children.
27. Not thus far mentioned in the chronology is the fact that T and S have diagnoses of foetal alcohol spectrum disorder. She denies in the threshold response that they have that syndrome because she had not drunk alcohol during pregnancy. She reached a different conclusion in the course of her evidence to which I will come.
28. I will say more about the law in due course, but the first question that the court will have to determine is whether the threshold criteria in section 31 of the Children Act 1989 are satisfied. It is not disputed that they are in this case. The unchallenged evidence of neglect, exposure to domestic abuse, the diagnoses of foetal alcohol spectrum disorder in respect of S and T and even the qualified acceptance of the concerns by the mother would point inexorably to the conclusion that on the relevant date these children has each suffered significant harm.
29. In concentrating on the second question that the court has to consider, what order should it make, it has been necessary to explore a number of those factual issues as they are directly relevant to whether this mother, with her sisters, or her sisters without the mother and either way with help from the local authority and other agencies, can safely meet the needs of the five children going forwards.

The children

30. Before turning to the evidence it is necessary to identify those needs by reference to the children, three of whom I had the pleasure of meeting in April. R, separately represented, is a delightful young woman and now young mother. She attended in court on the first day of this hearing, on Monday of this week. Acknowledging her right to be here I gently suggested that, with her present responsibilities, her time might better be used elsewhere. She did then withdraw from the hearing. It was therefore disappointing to be told that she had nevertheless stayed at court throughout the hearing to support her mother. That is not, I should say, a criticism of R. The local authority says it is a criticism of the mother, a dependency of the mother on her child, the opposite of what one would hope for: a mother who cannot, at a critical time in the lives of R and her baby, insist that R leave and attend to the really important things in her life rather than stay and help her mother sort out a lifetime of problems of her own. R is doing well despite the neglect, despite the loss of much of her education which she is keen to make up, and she appears to have grasped the nurturing help and support of the carers around her and with whom she lives as well as the local authority.
31. S is a girl with a previous diagnosis of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, which has now been withdrawn, but nevertheless has learning difficulties, who functions at a much younger age than her chronological age. Highly dependent on consistent nurturing foster carers she is socially and emotionally immature, has needed assistance with all basic tasks down to prompting regarding personal hygiene. Despite the mother's denials and a referral to Dr Palmer, the paediatrician, there has been a diagnosis of foetal alcohol spectrum disorder, which is said to contribute to S's level of functioning and learning disability. Having also missed much school she is in a specialist educational establishment which she enjoys and wishes to progress to the sixth form. Assessed as vulnerable, particularly where boys are concerned, she has needed and continues to need significant ongoing work with regard to friendships, relationships and sexual boundaries. Having had one change of foster carer she has settled well with her present foster carers, is happy, thriving, relaxed and comfortable in their company. She not only wishes to stay, she has reported her concerns about the younger three siblings returning to their mother.
32. T, also separately represented by Mrs Melvin, who represented R, has had very similar life experiences to S. Like her, he has a diagnosis of foetal alcohol spectrum disorder, albeit he does not have any learning difficulties despite needing additional support in certain subjects at school, where he is said to be unfocussed, and sometimes disruptive. In his case he has particularly struggled with boundaries with reference to seeing his mother whose wellbeing, much like R, is very much his concern. He is, however, doing very well in placement. He wants to remain there and wants the plan for him to succeed.
33. If I can just skip U for the moment and go to V, she uniquely has been able to remain in the same placement since accommodated and has benefited greatly from it. Suspected of suffering from foetal alcohol spectrum disorder, that diagnosis has not been confirmed and she has not displayed behavioural difficulties since she was accommodated. Fit and well, having gained weight, she is performing at school just below age related expectations. She has formed positive attachments with her foster carers, seems to accept that she cannot live with her mother and shows no real distress at separation from her. She is happy, relaxed and seemingly content in placement and to her children's guardian she scored her placement as eight out of eight.
34. In many ways U and W fall to be considered together. Placed together with a single foster carer she simply could not manage their behaviour so, in August 2015, they were moved together to very experienced foster carers. Although sufficiently at ease to make the various disclosures they did about life at home, their aggressive behaviour has been challenging far beyond what might be termed sibling rivalry. Hence the decision to separate them in February 2016 with remarkably beneficial effect.
35. The descriptions of their behaviour when together are really quite startling. The non-adherence to any rules or boundaries, the looking for trouble, the very demanding need they had for attention, in U's case often with outbursts of aggression and anger that upset W, he being described as going into meltdown with rapid mood changes. U hurt W physically. Each of them fuelled the other's behaviour and antagonised each other. U went to head butt his foster carer, aged 7, and he hit T in the face causing him to suffer an injury that bled. On the move to experienced carers the initial improvement noted was short lived. Regular physical fighting and verbal disagreements characterised their behaviour. Attempts by adults to diffuse such behaviour simply redirected it towards the adult in question. Vocal beyond their years their language was described as coarse and foul. It progressively got worse. At times their bedrooms were trashed, threats were made to smash toys in the face of the foster carers, U threatened to slap his foster carer in the face and to take the handbrake off whilst in the car. W threatened to take a knife to the foster carer. Basic instructions were ignored and these extremely experienced foster carers noted that the competition between the boys led to pushing, shoving, shouting, throwing to an extent that it was completely impossible to leave them unattended at all because of the need for constant supervision at all times when awake.
36. Despite sterling efforts to keep them together the local authority had to bow to the inevitable and U was moved in February 2016, leaving W where he was. The effect has been transformatory. Remarkable, astonishing, mellowed presentation, emotionally matured, calmer, no aggression, growth in confidence and contentedness with surroundings are some of the descriptions.
37. U, initially upset to be moved, settled well and is showing enormous promise on all fronts, including at school and he rates his placement at 20 out of ten. W became instantly and visibly relaxed and calmer. There was no emotional upset and he is said by his by then consistent carer to be "a different child". His confidence has grown, he is polite, caring and considerate and said to be much more like the 6 year old boy he is. Overall the social worker commented that she could not have wished for a better outcome and does not think that better placements could have been found for any of the children.
38. Having investigated for foetal alcohol spectrum disorder, Dr Palmer has made no diagnosis in respect of the younger children, albeit in W's case as at April and following the separation of the siblings she highlights her concern that his behaviours are consistent with a mild neuro-developmental disorder which may relate to foetal alcohol spectrum disorder. The mother denied alcohol use to her. That she has now accepted some alcohol use at least is obviously a factor for Dr Palmer to consider in the event that problems arise again.
39. So what does the court take from all of this? All five children in respect of whom orders are sought present with a variety of complex difficulties. The local authority and the children's guardian say that they are born of their experience of neglect. Neglect is physically and emotionally abusive. The physical effects of deprivation of the most basic needs are readily understood and cause significant harm as all the research shows. The emotional effects are more subtle. It is the lack of predictability, of routines, boundaries, confidence that the next meal will come and if it does be sufficient, the isolating effect of being dirty and unkempt, the fear caused by domestic abuse, the lack of reliable accessibility to a consistent care giver damage children as much, if not more, than the physical harm. It affects their ability to form secure attachments, to function in an acceptable way, to rely on their key adults as dependable and so on. In short, it causes significant harm and each of these children has thus been damaged. Where additionally foetal alcohol spectrum disorder, or learning disability, or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, or any other disorder is superimposed it magnifies still further the problem.
40. These are children who, in each case, have much catching up to do. Their levels of need are high. They need carers with experience, who have a high degree of emotional intelligence and can commit consistently to the children. That therefore brings me directly to the central issue in this case, what orders should the court make in respect of U, V and W?

The local authority evidence

41. The local authority carried out a parenting assessment of the mother. It is a lengthy, detailed assessment carried out between June and September 2015. Its conclusion, sadly, was negative. It is not possible to do justice to such a detailed document, but I will take what I consider to be the key points from it.
42. The local authority social worker identified that regardless of with whom M is in a relationship she has always needed the help of services. She notes the longstanding involvement of the local authority, the many referrals over a wide variety of concerning issues over twelve years. She identified an emerging pattern with M herself experiencing little stability in her own upbringing, which in turn is reflected in her parenting. Her relationship with her own mother, the maternal grandmother, is inconsistent and unpredictable, yet she still views her mother, and relies on her, as a source of support. It was very difficult to obtain detail about how she was parented herself. She appeared to have few and limited positive experiences and very little memory of significant events, leading the assessor to consider that she had almost certainly experienced high levels of stress and trauma due to poor parenting herself.
43. Then there is the entrenched historical pattern within relationships of domestic abuse, poor parenting and neglect. Having investigated these in some detail she reached a conclusion that M, sadly, was unable to demonstrate the capacity and motivation to achieve the changes necessary in her parenting to meet the needs of each of the children and, whilst change had been evidenced in the past, the children had been known to Children's Services for so long that this pointed to the inability of it to be sustained.
44. M has three full sisters, MA4, MA1 and MA2. It would appear that MA4 at least had a similar experience of being parented to M as her two sons, each with foetal alcohol spectrum disorder aged 6 and 9, now live with MA1 under a special guardianship order just over the road from M, who in turn lives in a flat above their mother, the maternal grandmother, and stepfather. The issues between MA4 and MA1 and between MA1 and the maternal grandmother are such that MA1 will not even enter the street where they and, of course, M live. MA1 was put forward as a carer primarily, as I understood it, for one of the younger boys because she has two boys. Despite many positive qualities the local authority assessment was negative of her as a carer, not through any shortcomings in her parenting as such but because of the risk of destabilising what is a good placement for her two nephews and, not least, because of the behaviours that either U or W have shown when they are denied the focus of the attention of their care giver.
45. MA2 was not assessed. Having put herself forward as a carer possibly for T she withdrew in February seemingly on telling the social worker that the maternal grandmother had said that M would not get the children back if her sisters put themselves forward. Like MA1 she gave evidence and put herself forward as part of a family support team which could include respite care but not primary care.
46. MA3 is the half-sister of the mother, MA1 and MA2. She put herself forward as a carer for T and was assessed, sadly, negatively. She has a long term partner who suffered a catastrophic head injury at work. She is his carer. They have no children. T blew hot and cold over going to live with MA3 so the focus moved to the younger children. However, the local authority found her plans to be confused and vague. She ruled herself out in the end for T, reporting that he would not buy in to a placement with her, and having considered the younger ones she said that the family had decided that they were doing well in foster care. As the assessment progressed the extent of M's influence on MA3's thinking increased anxiety and the risk of destabilisation. The local authority also questioned her commitment with several changes of position as well as a lack of confidence observed in MA3 herself. I heard from MA3 as well and, for the record, her position remains as a support to M in the first instance, to care for one of the younger children in the alternative, probably V because, as she said, MA1 and MA2 have boys, making it more sense to place the boys with them.
47. All the social work evidence and key documents were prepared by SW, the social worker. Her industry is remarkable for the sheer volume of work that she has carried out in what is a complex case by any measure. I was impressed with her grasp of what is plainly a difficult case.
48. Maintaining her position that the care plans are the correct ones but noting a greater acceptance of matters formerly in dispute, for example, the trouble between U and W, she nevertheless remained concerned as to M's ability to instil boundaries and challenge behaviours that was evident throughout contact as well as in her inability to follow through on advice such as was given to her by contact supervisors. She said that placing U and W together again would cause her very considerable concern they having successfully broken two placements to date and it was her clear view that putting them together with M, or with MA3, would be likely to result in a reversion to that formerly described behaviour, quite apart from the need that they each have for a resilient, really experienced carer.
49. In MA1's case it was not in doubt so much as the risk as to the placement of her nephews. She noted that MA3 was not a person with any parenting experience and the needs of her own husband concerned her as to whether she would be able to prioritise a child over him.
50. Family dysfunction was another factor against placement with M, observing that MA1, even as a support, will not visit M's street. M living above her own mother was a concern. She did so in the four to five months leading to removal when the children were living in such poor circumstances and they were also assessed, the maternal grandmother and her husband, but ruled out because they simply did not recognise any concern or need for support.
51. Miss McKenzie, on behalf of M, cross-examined the social worker at some length. Although there remained unresolved issues, such as whether M was, for example, pregnant in January 2015, she accepted that M, with MA1's financial help, seemed to have fled Durham with the children but no material belongings. After a short stay with MA1 she was able to move into the flat above the maternal grandmother. She could not confirm that M had sought assistance from the local authority by going to the Civic Centre as she said, but she said that the offer of a child in need assessment had been refused. I have to say, I found the chronology contradictory in this regard, albeit no such assessment has been seen by the court at any stage and I do not take M's evidence as suggesting that such an assessment was ever completed.
52. The social worker acknowledged that M appeared to be in a better place. She was certainly clean, well turned out and more confident. There has been no evidence of drink in the month since removal, no evidence of any men in her life since September and on self report she stopped smoking eight weeks ago. The house is said to be clean.
53. She confirmed that M had accessed on her advice Organisation C, an organisation that has a 26 week programme that is designed to assist mothers with the experience that this mother has had. She is half way through that programme, which is consistent with the improvement she acknowledged. M was more willing to admit things than she had previously been and there was further evidence of progress and she did not for a moment doubt that M loves the children very much, just as they love her. She confirmed that she has never missed any contact.
54. But she said that although there had been progress it was relatively late and it was against a formidable history. She would not accept that M's shortcomings could be cured by teaching her to manage, for example, the children's behaviour. Whilst it could be capable of being learned, the 13 year history of local authority involvement and the depth of the problem suggested that something more long term was necessary and in this regard timescales are relevant, these children having now been accommodated for 14 months to date. The history showed an ability to make change but then let things slip. So she was interested to find motivation to make life long change to prioritise the needs of the children. In that context she referred to M's own poor experience of being parented, the evidence of her inability to retain information from professionals and apply it and it was not so much the knowledge of what needed to be done but her ability to do so consistently and sustain it that was key.
55. To Miss Hunter for the guardian with regard to the behaviour of U and W she said this:

"The behaviour of the boys together is such that they need constant supervision. If they went back to their mother it wouldn't be realistic to think they would get it. As a single parent it would be difficult constantly to supervise the boys. Even preparing basic meals was a difficulty for their foster carer. As soon as they woke up they were fighting."

56. S had reported carrying out a lot of caring work for the younger children. Noting a lack of any medical explanation for their behaviour she felt it was attributable to the care they had received, constantly fighting, as she put it, for their care giving. She agreed with the guardian's analysis that it was attributable to the lack of routines, guidance and boundaries. She said just last week the contact officer had reported it was difficult for M to instil boundaries, she was not following through on instructions and was having to be prompted. She said this:

"I do recognise change but I don't think it's enough to meet the needs of the younger three children. All three have made progress in their placement and I don't think it would be sustained if they returned home. The risk is long term harm."

The mother's evidence

57. That was therefore the local authority evidence. I heard from the M. She gave evidence at length. An attractive witness, well groomed, not displaying any signs of self neglect, she gave evidence with good humour, with appropriate anxiety as well at times of upset and gave me a good opportunity to observe her. She talked through her history in January 2015, fleeing F2 when he was seemingly drunk and insensible, the violence, the pressure, the control, not just of her but of the children, and the harm to which she was physically exposed and the children witnessed. She denied the self report that she was pregnant to anyone and certainly not a 21 year old, which appeared to be the final motivation for fleeing F2. She said having obtained a flat it was unfurnished and she had come with nothing. She said the local authority refused to help when she asked for assistance because it was not involved with the family.
58. She told me about X. He is F2's cousin. She denied absolutely having a relationship with him, albeit he wanted to have one with her. She said that he helped her move some stuff and he had a van which enabled this to take place: "I thought he would be a decent friend to talk to." She went on to say that sometimes they would have a drink and so: "I thought it would better if he slept over in the back bedroom with the three lads", albeit she then later went on to say the she told him to sleep in the living room. Whilst U did call him dad, as did T, he plainly was not their dad and she said she told them. She said: "They called him my boyfriend, but I told them he wasn't." When X hurt U by jamming a drawer on his hand she said she believed U but she made the wrong decision to deny it, she said because she was scared of X's threats to send people to her door and put her in hospital.
59. Now that she had done half the Organisation C's course she had learned so much. It had improved her confidence and self esteem and whilst she was not looking for another relationship she would know now what to look for. She said the history was simply horrible, it should not have occurred, but she urged on the court that it would not be repeated. Accepting that the children have been damaged by the experience she said:

"It'll take time for them to get back where they were. I'll work with them day by day and give them all the support and attention that they should have had",

accepting at the same time support from the family and the local authority.

60. She ended her evidence in chief saying this:

"I am not going to go back down the route I was down. I have changed a lot. I have pulled myself together, sorted the house out and I want them home."

I will come to the cross-examination of her when I assess the evidence.

The mother's witnesses

61. I heard from each of MA1, MA2 and MA3, who had prepared statements that were almost word for word the same. Each was impressive in their own distinctive way and I have no doubt either of their competence.
62. MA1 described the limited relationship that she had with M due to her awful partners. She had made several referrals about the children to the local authority because of her concern regarding the children. Although initially in her own name many that followed were anonymous. Her hope had been for them, the sisters, to care for one child each. She disagreed that her having one would destabilise her nephews. In any event she said that she would be able to support M. She would be at school twice daily because her boys go to the same school. She would visit her. She would have the children to stay and take them out. She said any sign of a man or an empty fridge and she would tell the local authority. She commented on the improved appearance and demeanour of M.
63. Acknowledging an awareness of the history, she said that although the two children in her care have foetal alcohol spectrum disorder, which leads to them needing, as she put it "extra good care" she said she would not say that it was that much harder. She said she had experienced her children fighting and she was able to solve it by separating them, thus suggesting she would be able to manage similar problems in the future if there was an additional child. She said, "I think, however, with our help that [M] will get where she needs to be."
64. MA2 did not seem in recent years to have had so much contact with M and the children. She too had made referrals via MA1, worried about cleanliness, the children not getting enough to eat, the unsatisfactory men, describing the way they treated M as "horrible". She was offering support, respite and would have a key to M's flat so that she would be able to check up on her unannounced. If she did not respond to something that she saw that she did not like she would call the local authority. She said it would be a team effort.
65. MA3, who had not been brought up with M, only got to know her in relatively recent years. Their relationship is such that they will go out together, they will talk via social media, but they do not go to each other's homes. She saw her role as extra support, but working with professionals she thought that M would be able to manage. She described her as a lot more confident in herself, not afraid to pick up the phone and ask for help. As she put it: "She doesn't look petrified anymore."
66. She told me that her injured partner had memory issues but that he did not need as close an eye kept on him as he previously had required, albeit he did need help with certain tasks. He has bilateral shoulder fractures so cannot raise his arms and she told me that she simply will not let him in the kitchen at all. She felt that, even if the boys are as they were described by the local authority, with work she could manage and she would welcome a professional opinion as to the best plan.

The children's guardian

67. Finally at the hearing I heard from the children's guardian whose concise but thorough analysis concluded that there is a mismatch between the very particular needs of these children and M's limited insight into those needs such that a return to her care would expose them to the risk of neglect and harm. Developing this she noted M's tendency to blame others, which was still apparent. She reported on the very late efforts by M to impose boundaries regarding T which had not been particularly successful against a long history of concealment.
68. She was concerned about M's inability to affect the behaviour of the children in contact. She said that the fact that she was unable to engage them all in contact, along with the children's apparent tendency not to follow her directions, quite apart from controlling potentially dangerous behaviour, was a concern. Accordingly she supported the local authority case in her oral evidence saying that, although M was trying very hard, the children did not see her as an authority figure. She cited V's difficult behaviour in contact, the treating by M of a written agreement regarding T's contact as simply permission for it to occur when it was designed to regulate what to do when it did happen in an unscheduled way.
69. The guardian told me that M's being soft had caused issues as to the stability of the placement, but she said this: "I think the main area of concern is emotional needs and I don't think that [M] appreciates it." For example, promises not followed through, not keeping appointments, not understanding S's learning difficulties and the behaviour of the younger three. So far as U was concerned she had told the guardian that the incident where his hand was trapped she had not witnessed. She did not get any sense of responsibility or insight as to what she would need to do differently. The description that M had given of fleeing Durham and then not sorting out the most basis home amenities worried her and her lack of understanding as to how that must have played out for the children.
70. She said that she did not believe that the younger three children saw M as a stable base which they would need for a positive attachment. They required care from carers emotionally attuned to them who could recognise and support them and this was a mother who had her own needs to address at first. Likewise she anticipated that behaviour would deteriorate markedly, particularly with the boys with the resumption of violence and aggression, making the point that S and T had to be separated from each other for the same reason.
71. Likewise she would not endorse the family plan. She said of MA1 that she would not put another child into that particular mix, as she put it, because of the high level of need those boys have. She was concerned that there was not a full appreciation of the concerns regarding M, the long periods when they had been out of the lives of their sisters, the individual needs of the children and the impact of moves from good, nurturing placements. She said she would need a high degree of certainty before endorsing such a move.
72. Cross-examined on behalf of M she acknowledged that W will be in foster care for a long time if the plan is endorsed, but although M has started the process of reform there was a long way to go. She has a deep love for the children. She does her very best. They know she cares, but she has not been able to care for them. Despite clear guidance she is not able to follow it consistently and the guardian felt that M would need to access counselling and possibly work around attachment issues to progress further. Despite it being explained to her clearly, she felt that she did not seem to absorb information. Likewise the support from the family, whilst it might be committed, would not meet the emotional needs, an ever present requirement.

The children's wishes

73. Although not heard from at this hearing last but not least I should mention the children who I saw in April. R was very clear that she wanted to live with her partner at his grandparents' and she had strong views about contact particularly with her siblings. T said that he wanted to live with his mother, then a family member and then stay where he is in that order. S was anxious for the right decision to be made, which in her terms was to be safe. As we now know she accepts the plan to stay where she is. They were polite, friendly, attractive and respectful children and I enjoyed meeting them. In the event I am not being asked by the local authority to do anything that they now oppose.

The law

74. So having established the threshold I revert to the second question that the court has to consider, namely, what order should the court make? I apply well established legal principles. I bear in mind the rights of M and the three children under Article 8 of the European Convention to respect for family and private life. The children's welfare is my paramount concern by virtue of section 1 of the Children Act. Delay is likely to prejudice their welfare. I have to have regard to the checklist of factors to be taken into account when determining where their welfare lies and what order should be made.
75. The particularly important features in this case are the very particular needs of these children given their background, the effect of a change of circumstances on each of them given the plan otherwise for them to remain where they are if care orders are made, the harm that they have suffered and the risk of them suffering further harm and the capacity of this mother and the extended family to meet those needs. In assessing these factors I acknowledge the need for proper evidence from the local authority and the guardian addressing the realistic options as well as the requirement for an adequately reasoned judgment addressing the issues in a global, holistic evaluation.
76. I fully accept that children should be brought up by parents, or one of them, if at all possible. Hence the acute focus on M who understandably wants to make amends to care for the children as much as, I have no doubt, they would like to be cared for by her. That said, their wishes and feelings are not in this case high on the list of matters that could be determinative given the complex history and the harm they have suffered.

Analysis

77. The case turns therefore very significantly on the court's assessment of M. I have described her pleasant and appropriate presentation. I do not doubt her intentions, that she loves the children and will not willingly or knowingly harm them. But she has in fact harmed them significantly throughout their lives which has these four consequences:

(i) She needs to recognise the extent of the harm and the fact that it is attributable to her neglect and exposure of the children to domestic abuse;

(ii) She needs to recognise that these children, with their very particular needs, will require levels of care which are greater than those that children of U, V and W's age who have not had their experiences need;

(iii) In addition to being receptive to help and support critically she needs to be completely open and honest because no one, family or professionals, can work with and help someone who is anything less than that;

(iv) She has a very long history of making sufficient progress only to slip back again. The removal of the children in May 2015 was the first removal, arguably too late in such a long history, but one of the mischiefs of chronic neglect is the cumulative effect of it and the fact that drastic intervention only comes too late. She therefore needs to be able to demonstrate to a very high degree that she has the capacity this time to sustain the necessary change.

78. It is these issues that were explored in cross-examination of her. The harm is perhaps most obviously seen in T and S, foetal alcohol spectrum disorder, and in the challenging behaviour of U and W. She steadfastly denied that T and S could have that disorder until very recently on the basis that she had not drunk alcohol whilst pregnant. As recently as her statement of 6^th May 2016, a year almost to the day following the children's removal, and her threshold response this week continues to deny it. Only in evidence did she say it was "possible" that she drank. Only in cross-examination did she concede it could be possible with regard to W. This was a worryingly late concession despite, I note, Dr Palmer's letter to her on 26^th May in which that doctor urged her not to feel guilty, pointing out that this is an evolving area of medicine and expressing reassurance that, no doubt now misplaced, M had told her that she had not drunk in the pregnancies of U and W.
79. So far as the boys' behaviour is concerned that too has been conceded very late indeed, her denying that there was anything untoward in it until this week. Questioned about it she said that she had seen it "a few times". Pressed a few times became "quite a lot" and pressed further it became "daily". That was a grudging response, extracted only under pressure and again it is not a recognition of the harm I have referred to. I found her claim of not knowing the extent of the behavioural problems of U and W difficult to accept. She had had first hand experience of it. Quite apart from meetings with the local authority social worker her final statement, as long ago as 31^st March, sets it out in graphic detail. Yet she still sought to minimise it saying "they have changed since they went into foster care" thereby implying that the behaviour was primarily due to her but attributable to the actions of the local authority in putting them into foster care. These are responses which offer no confidence of an appreciation of the extent of the harm.
80. That feeds into the second point, the needs of the children. It goes without saying that if the harm is not fully recognised it is not possible to meet their very particular needs. There was a simple naivety in her answers to questions about how she would manage it, saying for example, "I would be able to sit down and talk to them." Indeed in respect of contact she denied having to talk, as she put it, to the younger ones, only the big ones that come "in a bit of a flip". I remind myself of the guardian's evidence that V tried to push a cupboard over in what was said to be actually a very good contact, which was an event seemingly beyond her ability to address. When told that even with the younger ones a lot of help is needed she repeated "I don't have to speak to them, we get through it." There was in these answers little acknowledgement that these are damaged children who need very particular care, despite her having accepted that they are scared and damaged. Whether it is saying what she thinks the questioner wants her to say, a failure to understand the issue properly, or simply being in denial is perhaps beyond the ability of this court to say but beside the point. Whichever it is it is not recognising the level of care that the children need.
81. I turn therefore to openness and honesty. Plainly an issue right up to the hearing the local authority was particularly anxious to explore just how far M's concessions went. There were several areas. The injury to U caused by X was an obvious example. U was seen at school with an injured hand. He said at school that his "dad" had jammed it in a drawer because, he said, "he had a headache and I was crying", suggesting that X lost his temper with U. M was asked about it at the time by the social worker and was told that U had said that she had been present throughout that incident. Her response was to say that she had not been aware of it, she had not seen any injury and indeed she went so far as to suggest that it had been caused by his fighting with W. In her initial threshold response she accepted that U had been injured but denied that she would have permitted it and implied thereby that she had had no role, even a passive one, within it. Her witness statement is completely silent about it, her threshold response on Monday was to accept the allegation. Asked about it when giving oral evidence in chief she said: "I believe U. U would not lie. I wasn't in the same room but the next day he had a mark." Only when cross-examined and pressed did she finally accept that she was indeed in the same room. That was not the conduct one expects from a witness who is seeking to convince a court that they are finally confessing fully to what has gone on and as she, again only when pressed, eventually acknowledged was an event deeply harmful to U, who was disbelieved, thought to be being dishonest and was being blamed for the breakup of the family because it was this event that precipitated their removal.
82. That leads on to X and again I had considerable doubts as to M's openness and honesty. No family member is able to say if she was in a relationship with that man. Her sisters did not know, but he plainly was ever present within the family home in those early months of 2015 to the extent that U and T were calling him dad. As the local authority said, he was either acting as such or these children are so confused that any male who comes into the house for any length of time ends up being called dad. M's evidence that he did not sleep in the small back bedroom with the three boys, an empty room with a single mattress seen in the photographs, was wholly unconvincing in the light of her freely telling me in evidence in chief that she had thought it better that he sleep over in the bedroom with the three boys than drive home after drinking.
83. The local authority has concerns about X. M told me that he threatened her. MA2, her sister, said that she would not even let him in the house when M turned up at her door with him. I do not know if there was a relationship between the two of them, but I do not find that M has been remotely open about his involvement in their lives in early 2015 in circumstances where she sought to protect him over her own injured son, whom she belatedly told me that she accompanied after this incident into his bedroom to comfort him, only then to go on to deny any knowledge of it. One asks rhetorically, how is any child able to trust an adult who behaves thus?
84. The other piece of information flowing from this relates to U's claim that there were no door handles on the bedroom door and that his mother would lock them in, pushing a knife under the door to open it when they needed to be out. M denied to the police that there were no door handles until confronted by the photographs that showed plainly the position. She now says that they were off the door because she was decorating but she denied locking them in and repeatedly denied that a knife was passed through underneath the door to enable them to let themselves out. It is such an extraordinary thing that U said to the police, a 7 year old boy. He said it to the social worker at school as well. I cannot accept that he has made it up. Why would he? M said more than once that U would not lie and she accepts that everything else he said was true. So I find myself disappointed that M is in denial in respect of this and it further undermines the confidence one can have in the extent of her progress thus far. There are other examples from the evidence, but I have made sufficient findings to really establish this concern.
85. So what confidence can the court have that things will not slip again? In short and without seeking to diminish what she has achieved, not a great deal. There is less than full acceptance of the extent of the harm. There is at best a very superficial understanding of the children's needs and she has some considerable way to go in openness and honesty. So on each of the issues I have raised there are, I am afraid, not positive responses.
86. That is not an end of the matter because M says with help from her family and the local authority she will manage and that brings me to her sisters. They were in many ways impressive and competent as well as quite sincere in their intention to help. They will not, I accept, have seen the full horror of what has gone before and so I am very reluctant to criticise well intentioned, genuine offers of help. But there are obstacles in the way to their being able to provide what is required. Quite apart from the considerable shortcomings in insight as well as honesty, which means there is a constant need for monitoring and support of M, in MA1's case the dysfunctional nature of the family is a problem. She will not enter the street where M lives because of her difficult relationship with her mother, whom she tells me she has not spoken to four years, and also with MA4 whose children she cares for. This is a grandmother who lived right beneath the terrible squalor that was the family flat in the first four months or so of 2015.
87. Whilst I have no doubt that MA1 is managing her nephews very well, I know little about their difficulties beyond the disorder that they are suffering from. I do not think, however, that she appreciates the level of difficulties that these children, damaged by chronic neglect quite apart from any superimposed other condition, present. Whilst she has undoubtedly helped M in the past, she has a very partial understanding of her circumstances and has been, at best, an intermittent person in her life. In asserting that "with our help she will get to where she needs to be, no one has helped her" there is either a betrayal of considerable ignorance as to the scale of the problem or a minimisation, neither of which is helpful. The assertion that no one has helped M before could not be further from the truth, as the lamentable history shows.
88. In MA2's case I was left in doubt as to precisely what it is she is offering beyond support, eyes and ears. Yet despite again some patchy awareness of problems she gave the court no confidence that she has confronted M, impressed on her the need to have total trust or ascertained what the truth really was.
89. In MA3's case her position was slightly different as a relatively recently involved half sister. But asked about her ability to challenge M, she was asked about this in the context of T, it became clear that she, as she put it, would not be wanting to do it very often, quite apart from the practical difficulty of her not being able to leave her husband at the drop of a hat.
90. Looking at their involvement and what they can offer and their insight into the scale of the problem I was particularly interested in their evidence regarding their role from January to May 2015. In circumstances where M had fled F2 with nothing save the six children and the clothes they stood in, then moved from MA1's into an unfurnished flat, one would have thought that anyone, not least sisters, would appreciate that the needs of this family were enormous. The responses of MA1 and MA2 were particularly disappointing. MA1 never visited the flat. Although she said she had given her some stuff for it she did not realise she was not going to get any other help. MA2 likewise never went. She told me that as early as the first week she had seen the children at her mother's: "I think me and my mam gave them a shower a couple of times as they were a bit dirty." Explored, it was not dirt from messy play, it was ingrained, greasy dirt on unkempt children. Surprisingly, knowing something of the history and accepting that alarm bells were ringing, she did nothing else to help and could not explain why.
91. In looking at their capacity to provide intuitive, insightful help to a sister in very considerable distress I found this very concerning evidence indeed. I cannot comprehend how they thought that a single mother with six children and no belongings could possibly have coped, still less this mother in respect of whom there were so many longstanding issues. I am afraid it gave no confidence that they can provide the support that she requires if they could not identify the dire straits that this vulnerable mother and even more vulnerable children were in. It does not bode well for intuitive and really very comprehensive support of not just a practical but an emotional nature.
92. I am also sorry to say that their proposals to care are equally problematic. Quite apart from the difficulty of placing the boys together again, and I agree with the guardian and social worker, it would be a risky and regressive step, there are not homes for all three. The risk to the stability of MA1's children is self-evident. It would be a tragedy for them if that was destabilised given the circumstances in which they came into her care and their need for permanence. To put either of the boys with her would risk undermining the stability that they have found in excellent placements with the disastrous consequences of failure and placing with new, different foster cares. MA2 offers no permanent home. MA3, in the court's judgment, is not in a position to take on the challenges that these children present. Having no experience of parenting at all to take on an older child with very particular requirements in the face of her caring obligations would not meet the needs of her partner, her priority, or the needs of a child needing care over and above the care a child of that age would ordinarily require. In each case, at best, it would amount to an experiment with doubtful prospects of success in circumstances where good prospects are needed to meet their needs.
93. In addressing me Miss McKenzie reminded me that M came very close to accepting the force of the local authority case at the end of her cross-examination. She was right in that, tearfully and bravely, she did. Her case is desperately sad and my assessment is that she is at the early stages of recognising the enormity of what has happened over the last 13 years, no doubt built on the harm that she herself suffered as a child. It is not just the children who have suffered. She is as much a victim of harm as they have been. That is a tragedy for her and her children and is most certainly not her fault. But the court's priority has to be the children and, although late in the day, the court will do what it can to prevent history from repeating itself and to give these children the best prospects available to maximise whatever opportunities they have in the future of succeeding in life.
94. I cannot accept that the lack of detail in the sisters' proposal, as Miss McKenzie suggests, is a strength either. It simply underlines the difficulties that I have identified from their evidence. As Miss Lugg said, the positive is that although the local authority is seeking permanence it is not a case where adoption is suggested. Circumstances can and do change. Prospects improve, relationships are maintained and promoted. This sincere, well intentioned family, however, cannot make short the profound defects identified or manage the harm caused and I am quite satisfied that the welfare of each of the three children is best met by continuing the work done with excellent foster carers in each case, where each child is settled, benefiting from robust, consistent care which is commensurate with their needs.
95. The level of support that would be required of M would come close to co-parenting, which the sisters cannot remotely offer and nor do I consider that the local authority could either. M's rehabilitation is, I am afraid, a very long and difficult process. It is to her enormous credit that she has placed her feet firmly on the lower rungs of the ladder and I hope that, for her sake but above all for her children's sake, despite the disappointment that this outcome will be that she perseveres with it.

Conclusion

96. In all the circumstances I approve the local authority plans and I make care orders in respect of each of the five children, including the three of whom I have just adjudicated.
97. I need to say a word about contact. After a phased reduction the local authority plan is for family contact with M, all six children, six times a year. It had been for four times a year in the school holidays. In accepting six times a year as suggested by the children's guardian, that was adopted very early on as appropriate by the local authority and rightly so. It is not an ideal plan, albeit the intentions are plainly good. Contact with all the children together is problematic for a variety of reasons, but not least the huge age range and the competing needs of the children as has been demonstrated within contact to date. That much seems to be accepted and so the evidence seemed to gravitate towards there being six contacts a year for each child with their mother but divided into groups on most, but perhaps not all, occasions.
98. There will in addition be sibling contact in any event. It is extremely important to the children. All whom I saw stressed it to me and I am encouraged to note that the carers are committed to this as well and I very much hope it can take place at a regular interval that meets the children's needs, informally promoted and arranged by carers.
99. To revert though to contact with M, the guardian's proposal was to make it for longer than the hour and a half that the local authority suggests and to make it activity based. I entirely agree with that proposal, as did the social worker. Whether it might on occasion be possible to have a combined contact with, for example, a meal with the two groups having separate contact before and after the meal so that everyone is together for a time but then they go their separate ways, will be something that can perhaps be considered along with all other considerations.
100. The limit of what the court can direct though was explained during evidence and argument. It is important to emphasise that although no child will be moving home as a result of this order their circumstances will change profoundly after today. There will, in a number of cases, be changes of school. Contact with their mother will reduce. They will have a new social worker and M is going to have to come to terms with the permanence of the situation. Accordingly much water is to flow under the bridge and no one can predict the reactions of the children, which could be quite diverse. It is often said, and I believe to be true, that it is always easier to increase contact than reduce it. In my judgment six times a year, community based contact during school holidays, for a reasonable period of time, is the right starting point. It is not just desirable though, it is the law, that contact must be reviewed regularly to ensure that it meets the needs of the children. M has a voice at the looked after child reviews that will take place regularly and ultimately an appeal to the independent reviewing officer even if, and I hope that this is not the case, she cannot forge a relationship with the new social worker, or social workers as it is likely to be given the number of children.
101. Finally, I am quite clear that T has to be weaned off his need to help himself to more contact. He has a pressing need to put down roots and to buy into his placement. He needs to be reassured about his mother, but not by going to see her and he needs to be supported in reducing his helping himself to contact seemingly at will and in a way that his mother has proved powerless to prevent. That said, the court can only express the principle. It cannot prescribe the answer other than to observe that it is going to involve work directly with T as well as work with and by M and the new social worker for T will need to have this very high on the list of priorities to address on taking over. Unless and until it is resolved the need to keep him safe and for his carers to know where he is will remain absolutely critical.
102. This is not, I acknowledge, the outcome M sought. I am also sorry that the children cannot be reunited with their mother who loves them as much as they love her. But I am satisfied that the local authority plan is the best that can be devised to give these sadly harmed children the best prospects belatedly of repairing some of the harm that they have suffered and developing whatever potential they may have in safe, secure, consistent and nurturing environments. On that note I wish them all well.
[Judgment ends]