England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges)

Case No: LS17C00690

IN THE FAMILY COURT

IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN ACT 1989 AND THE ADOPTION AND CHILDREN ACT 2002

AND IN THE MATTER OF X AND Y, CHILDREN

Date: 15 June 2018

Before :

HHJ Lynch

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Between :

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Sara Anning for the Applicant

Sally Beaumont for the 1^st Respondent

Chris Brown for the Children

Hearing dates:

Before HHJ Lynch 8, 13 and 15 June 2018

Before Parker J 11-12 June 2018

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

JUDGMENT APPROVED

Introduction

1. In these proceedings I am concerned for X and Y, both aged under five. Their mother is M (“the mother”). She is Polish, having moved to the UK in 2012. The identity of their fathers is unknown. At the outset of these proceedings two men were made parties, it being believed they were the boys’ fathers, but DNA testing proved neither was and they have been discharged as parties. Declarations of non-parentage have been made to enable their birth certificates to be rectified. The mother has been able to offer no other suggestion as to who might be the boys’ fathers, being particularly clear that she was certain about the identity of Y’s father and thought the DNA test must be wrong. The local authority has employed an enquiry agent to attempt to trace men whose names were known but without success. There are members of the extended maternal family living in the UK including the maternal grandparents and a maternal uncle.
2. Both X and Y are subject to interim care orders in favour of the local authority and have been since 21 September 2017, the local authority’s application for a care order having been made earlier that month. The boys are placed together in foster care and have been at the same placement throughout proceedings. The boys have supervised contact with their mother but the frequency of that contact has fluctuated during the proceedings, owing to her non-attendance. Currently she has contact once a fortnight.
3. Within these proceedings the mother has been assessed by the local authority and alcohol testing carried out. There have also been a number of assessments of family members which have either been negative or the family member decided not to proceed with the assessment. One realistic option though seemed to be a couple who were extended family members and who live in Poland. The local authority would have been happy to assess them but it needed to be done in Poland so the Polish authorities carried out an assessment. That was positive although did not contain sufficient information for the local authority here to be satisfied the placement was right and further investigations were made. There was a plan for the couple to come to the UK to spend time with the children and be further assessed. As a result of these plans the proceedings were delayed significantly as it was important to know if there was any possibility of these boys growing up in their birth family. Sadly, at the end of March 2018 the couple decided not to pursue care of the children and withdrew from the process.
4. At the final review hearing the Polish Vice-Consul attended, the consul having been kept up to date with proceedings as they had progressed. She indicated that the Polish authorities would wish the matter to be transferred to be heard in Poland and subsequently the mother made an application for transfer under Article 15. It was agreed that that application if made would be dealt with on the first two days of the hearing and the Polish Consulate was allowed to intervene in the proceedings so representations could be made in relation to transfer. For listing reasons, the case was moved from my list to that of Parker J, and she heard the application for transfer, refusing it on 12 June. I am informed by the advocates that the reasons given included that this court could properly consider all the options for the boys including placement in Poland, that this court could deal with it most expeditiously, and that all witnesses are in this country and except for the mother are English speaking. A decision was then taken to transfer the balance of the hearing back to my list. On Wednesday the mother failed to attend court, having not attended either of the first two days either, and the case was heard in her absence. I heard evidence from the social worker and guardian and the mother’s advocate had the opportunity to cross-examine them. I am satisfied the mother was aware the final hearing was taking place and it was her choice not to attend.

The Issues and the Evidence

5. In preparing for this hearing I have read all the key documents in the bundle of papers provided to me in this matter and have considered an email sent by the Polish central authority and an email from the Intercountry Adoption Centre.  I heard oral evidence from the social worker and guardian. It is the case I know well, having been responsible for it throughout.
6. The issues I have had to decide are limited. That is because the mother, albeit only last Friday, extremely late in these proceedings, conceded that threshold was met. The parties were able to agree a form of words which set out the situation at the beginning of these proceedings and reflects that the children were at that time suffering and were at risk of suffering significant harm. The man named in the threshold document, the man who was believed to be Y’s father, has not given his consent to the wording but he was a party when it was being discussed and knew the court would be asked to approve the document or to decide on its truth in due course. In his statement filed in these proceedings he admits a violent incident against the mother and his conviction is a matter of record. The wording agreed between the parties is set out in full at the end of this judgment. I am satisfied that it is an accurate document, based on the evidence I have read which has not been challenged.
7. The only decision I have therefore had to make relates to the boys’ welfare, to decide what the plan should be for their future. The local authority, supported by the guardian, say that having considered all options the only possible outcome for these boys is one of adoption. I am invited to make final care orders, approving a plan of adoption, and to make placement orders, dispensing with the mother’s consent.
8. The local authority’s care plan for both children is permanence through adoption.  The intention is that the children will be placed in a joint adoptive placement, everyone agreeing without a shadow of doubt these boys are closely attached and need to live together. Contact between the boys and their mother will be gradually reduced, until by August contact will occur once per month. The maternal grandparents or the uncle will be able to attend this contact with the mother, if they wish to see the children.  A final contact will take place once an adoptive placement is identified.

9.      The local authority at the outset of this case sought to assess the mother. The concerns which had led to proceedings being begun related to the mother’s lifestyle including her misuse of alcohol. The mother came to the UK in 2012, moving to Leeds in May 2015 following a serious incident of violence between herself and her then partner when X was present. Then in May 2017 the police were called to a serious incident of domestic violence between the mother and her subsequent partner, Z, an incident in relation to which S was subsequently found guilty of a s39 assault on the mother. The mother and S give different accounts of what happened but it is accepted there the children were exposed to a serious incident of domestic abuse including physical violence. Z was bailed with a condition not to live at the home where the mother and children lived.

10.  Days later the social worker visited the home to find the mother had locked herself and the children in. When police assisted to gain entry, S was found in the home in breach of his bail conditions. The mother’s presentation suggested that she had been drinking and when tested she was found to be many times over the legal driving limit. She was arrested for child neglect, Y being severely dehydrated, cold and unresponsive, the house was dirty and cluttered and the children had no clean clothes. She ultimately received a conditional caution for child neglect, a condition being that that she work with the local authority. However, within a week she moved back in with Z without informing the local authority. The social worker advised her it was not safe for the children to live with him and the home was not suitable for the children. A few days later she did move back in with the maternal grandparents.

11.  About a month later the social worker undertook a home visit to the children at the grandparents’ home and was initially unable to gain entry. When she returned with police the mother was found to be intoxicated and unable to care for the children, detail about the situation being in the police evidence. The children were unclean and unkempt and the home condition presented a clear risk of harm to the children. The mother was arrested and the children removed pursuant to police protective powers, the mother later agreeing to them being accommodated by the local authority. Child protection medical examinations took place in next day and a number of bruises were found on the children, which the local authority says were the result of inadequate supervision. Those concerns led these proceedings beginning.

12.  During these proceedings, the mother was tested for alcohol consumption, including using a SCRAM bracelet, the tests being undertaken between September and November 2017. The initial results appeared to indicate that the mother was abstaining from alcohol, but sadly that was not maintained. The mother said she would engage with substance misuse support but did not do so at that time, despite being assisted to make initial contact in October. Prior to October there were other hopeful signs, the mother’s contact with the boys being largely positive as well. However, in November the mother missed over half her contact sessions. The SCRAM bracelet results indicate binge-drinking episodes during this period, multiple occasions of high level and low level drinking in November and one occasion when the bracelet was unable to take a reading but subsequently alcohol was detected, a ‘tamper incident’.  The mother challenged the test results and clarification was sought from the testing company regarding the accuracy of the SCRAM bracelet was sought.  The company confirmed that the system is set up to give the benefit of the doubt to the wearer.

13.  Alongside the testing, there was also an assessment of the mother carried out by the local authority, the mother attending two thirds of the sessions. The mother was not consistent in what she reported to the social worker, and her accounts differed from those of Z, but it was clear from the assessment that the children were living in a home where they were repeatedly exposed to the volatile relationship between the mother and Z and their alcohol abuse. The social worker in her oral evidence was clear that the mother still did not see what the impact would be on the children of this situation. It is known she has lived in the same house as Z throughout these proceedings, even on her own evidence until about a month ago, but she does not see that this should be an issue.

14.  In relation to her alcohol use, the mother consistently said that her consumption of alcohol was low, in no way a level which could account for the alcohol test results. The local authority was concerned that the mother had not engaged with services which could support her in ceasing to binge drink, or indeed with avoiding entering a further violent relationship. The mother failed to attend three start appointments with the substance misuse agency, only eventually attending on the fourth occasion. The local authority accepts that agency quite quickly ceased to work with the mother, but makes the point that that was on the basis her own self reporting. Enquiries were made by the social worker of the substance misuse worker, only to learn that he was not aware of the history including the SCRAM results. The mother’s attendance at a local project working with young women who had been in abusive relationships was also poor.

15.  There have also been difficulties in the mother attending contact regularly. Contact was initially twice a week but reduced to weekly in December due to her lack of regular attendance. After that reduction the mother gave a commitment to attend regularly and it was increased to twice per week at the end of January 2018. Again though, she did not attend regularly and it was reduced back to once per week in March 2018. From November, the mother was asked to text or call the contact team to confirm she would be attending contact. When contact was reduced in March 2018 she was surprised, saying that she contacted the team when she was coming and does not contact them when she was not. She did not appear to understand why seeing her children should not be considered optional. Since then she has attended contact once every two weeks.  The local authority would say that the mother’s inability to commit to regular contact with her children is indicative of a chaotic lifestyle, an inability to prioritise her children’s needs and a failure to understand the emotional impact of her behaviour on the children.

16.  I should refer to one incident of contact, the details of which are in dispute. On 27 March 2018 the local authority says the mother attended contact at 10 o’clock in the morning, alongside her mother, smelling of alcohol. A statement was filed by the contact supervisor, attaching to it her notes of contact. She says within the first five minutes she could smell alcohol in the contact room but did not feel she could stop contact as the boys would have been distressed. The interpreter present commented on this to the social worker, saying the smell was stronger as the mother passed her. The interpreter said she was struggling to understand what the mother and grandmother were saying, their speech being slow and slurred. Contact continued and there were no incidents of concern. At the end of contact the supervisor asked the mother and grandmother if they had been drinking, and the mother looked away and then both said no. The supervisor observed that she had supervised this family’s contact on multiple occasions and the mother presented as louder than usual.

17.  The local authority’s final evidence acknowledged positives in relation to the mother. When she attends contact, there is a warm relationship with the children and there are clearly times when she has been able to meet their needs. However, given that she has not been able to demonstrate or make any changes in respect of the concerns around her alcohol use and volatile relationships, the social worker said that the boys would still be a significant risk of neglect and harm if they were living with their mother.

18.  Consideration was given to whether the mother could care for the children with any professional or family support but the point was made that this was the position prior to proceedings being issued and the mother did not demonstrate she could be trusted. She had not engaged with agencies that would provide her with support, including around alcohol misuse and domestic abuse, and that meant one could not be confident that change could be achieved and maintained in the future. The local authority would say there is no realistic plan which could be put in place to manage the risks of harm to the children in the mother’s care.

19.  The local authority has considered foster care as a long-term option for the children in the UK or in Poland, it being known the Polish authorities have identified potential foster carers there, but concludes that the children’s ages, life experiences and emotional needs demand a level of certainty and permanence that is less likely to be achieved via long term foster care.  The children it is said also need lives that are free from state interference rather than growing up as ‘looked after children’ with all that that entails.  Whilst long-term foster care would permit an ongoing direct relationship between the children and their mother, it is not accepted that this outweighs the detriments of long term foster care. The local authority is also conscious the mother has not been able to commit to contact even over the life of these proceedings.

20. The local authority therefore says that the children’s welfare throughout their lives can only be met by them being placed for adoption. The orders sought are proportionate and necessary to meet the welfare needs of the children.  The local authority recognises if the plan of adoption is endorsed the loss to the children of their relationship with their mother throughout their lives.  The local authority says that this loss is outweighed by the risk to their physical and emotional safety in their mother’s care.  Whilst an adoptive placement will not provide the opportunity for the children to maintain a link with their birth mother, life story work and indirect contact will be offered to provide emotional support to the children with this loss.  An adoptive placement will be found for the children that will meet all other of their welfare needs to ensure their emotional and physical wellbeing now and throughout their lives.
21. In terms of what kind of adoptive placement would best meet the needs of the boys, the social worker provided a statement setting out what she thinks the boys need from their carers. She acknowledges that those needs include their cultural heritage, both children being Polish. X’s first language when he entered foster carer was Polish, although both children now speak English as their first language.  The Polish authorities have indicated there would be potential adopters for the boys in that country. The local authority has made it known that if placement orders are made then it would willingly consider prospective adopters living in Poland, in accordance with The Hague Convention, and I have seen email correspondence in this regard. The adoption agency would look at the suitability of any prospective adopter from Poland to be matched to the children, those considerations being no different to considering a match for a prospective adopter within the UK.  In terms of looking for potential adopters in the UK, the local authority will seek to identify adopters who have either a family link to Poland or are motivated and willing to learn about Polish cultures or traditions in order to best meet the children’s needs.
22. The guardian supports the local authority’s analysis of the options for the children. She has been forced to rely on the assessment of others in relation to the mother as the mother has not engaged with her at all. She agrees that the mother has continued to place her own needs over and above the needs of the boys and if the boys were returned to her care they would again be exposed to a risk of significant harm. Having done her own balancing exercise of all the children’s needs, she too concludes that only adoption can meet all the needs of the children. She too agrees that given the age of the boys foster care would not be appropriate for them, whilst acknowledging this will lose them a relationship with their birth family.
23. The mother failed to attend the final hearing so I have not heard from her and her engagement in these proceedings has been inconsistent. She never filed an initial statement and her final statement was filed just one or two working days before the final hearing, long after it should have been. In her statement she says she wishes to have the boys back in her care. She says she does not have a problem with alcohol, although accepts that she “drank to excess on a couple of occasions” whilst wearing the SCRAM bracelet. She said this was due to her being stressed and upset at being apart from the children who she misses terribly. She says her work with the substance misuse agency has enabled her to manage her drinking and she does not believe she will use alcohol to excess in the future. She appends to her statement a letter from the substance misuse worker, confirming she attended on three occasions, did not smell alcohol when she was present, and he was positive about her ability not to misuse alcohol in future. She had told him about a month before he wrote that that she might be interested in a recovery programme they ran so he was going to refer her to that, but four weeks later she had not engaged with that programme.
24. The mother accepted she did not attend all the sessions at domestic abuse programme but again said she felt she had learned enough to assure the court she would not get involved in any abusive relationships in the future. She accepted Z said lived with her and her parents until about a month ago but says they did not see much of each other.
25. In relation to non-attendance at contact, she said: “I accept I have not attended contact reliably and I regret the upset this will have caused my children…. If I have missed contact it is because I have had a medical appointment.” [B59] She denied ever having attended contact under the influence of alcohol.
26. The mother said she would work with professionals in order to have her children home with her and would attend groups which was felt would benefit her and the children.
27. If the children could not be placed with her, the mother said she did not wish them to be adopted in the UK, saying she felt not being able to see her and her family would be distressing to them. She would want them to be able to speak Polish throughout their lives as their first language ideally and hence wanted them to be living with a Polish family. She would therefore prefer the children to be in foster care or adopted in Poland if they were not with her. She would want to return to Poland if her children were there so she could see them as often as possible.

Findings on matters in dispute

28. In family proceedings, as in other civil proceedings, the burden of proving a fact rests on the person who asserts it.  The standard of proof is the balance of probabilities, the question being is it more likely than not that the alleged event occurred.  Neither the seriousness of the allegation nor the seriousness of the consequences alters this.
29. I have considered the contact session which took place on 27 March when it is said the mother attended smelling of alcohol. Ms Beaumont on the mother’s behalf and in the absence of her client urged me against this. She made the observations that it was only a smell of alcohol and there was no testing of the mother and that the contact was allowed to progress and seemed to be a positive experience for the boys. I am conscious the mother failed to attend to give any evidence on this matter and that she has not been honest about her alcohol consumption in the past. On the evidence of the contact worker, recording the observations of the interpreter as well, I do find that the mother attended contact smelling of alcohol.

Decision

30. I now turn to consider what orders if any are in the best interests of X and Y.  I start very clearly from the position that, wherever possible, children should be brought up by their natural parents and if not by other members of their family.  The state should not interfere in family life so as to separate children from their families unless it has been demonstrated to be both necessary and proportionate and that no other less radical form of order would achieve the essential aim of promoting their welfare.  In Re B [2013] UKSC 33 the Supreme Court emphasised this, reminding us such orders are “very extreme”, and should only be made when “necessary” for the protection of the child’s interests, “when nothing else will do”.  The court “must never lose sight of the fact that (the child’s) interests include being brought up by her natural family, ideally her parents, or at least one of them” and adoption “should only be contemplated as a last resort”. 
31. It is not for the court to look for a better placement for a child; social engineering is not permitted.  In YC v United Kingdom [2012] 55 EHRR 33 it was said : “Family ties may only be severed in very exceptional circumstances and….everything must be done to preserve personal relations and, where appropriate, to ‘rebuild’ the family.  It is not enough to show that a child could be placed in a more beneficial environment for his upbringing.”
32. I have looked again at the words of the President in Re B-S (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 1146 as well as the judgments in Re B (supra) and reminded myself of the importance of addressing my mind to all the options for these children, taking into account the assistance and support which the authorities or others would offer.
33. In reaching my decision I have taken into account that the welfare of X and Y throughout their lives is my paramount consideration and also the need to make the least interventionist order possible. I have to consider the Article 8 rights of the adults and the children as any decision I make today will inevitably involve an interference with the right to respect to family life. I am very conscious that any orders I go on to make must be in accordance with law, necessary for the protection of the children’s rights and be proportionate.
34. A placement order is sought by the local authority in respect of X and Y.  The court cannot make a placement order unless the parent has consented or the court is satisfied that the parents’ consent should be dispensed with.  A court cannot dispense with a parent’s consent unless either the parent cannot be found, or lacks capacity to give consent, or the welfare of the child “requires” consent to be dispensed with. In that context I am conscious that “requires” means what is demanded rather than what is merely optional. 
35. The central question I have to ask myself is whether X and Y should be returned to their mother’s care, with or without statutory orders; whether they should be placed in long term foster care; or whether they should be adopted.  McFarlane LJ in Re G [2013] EWCA Civ 965 said “What is required is a balancing exercise in which each option is evaluated to the degree of detail necessary to analyse and weigh its own internal positives and negatives and each option is then compared, side by side, against the competing option or options.” In addressing this task, I have considered all the points in the welfare checklists contained in both the Children Act 1989 and the Adoption and Children Act 2002, and propose to consider the evidence in the light of those factors.
36. The first factor I am going to address is the boys’ particular needs, physical, emotional and educational, alongside their age, sex, background and any other relevant characteristics. It is self-evident that they have all the needs of any small child, to be kept safe and secure by those bringing them up. They need somebody who is emotionally available to them on a consistent basis. They need someone alert to difficulties they may present because of the problems in their early life. X in particular has delayed speech and language development, which has improved it seems due to the quality of care he has been getting and consistency of approach between home and nursery, but adopters will need to continue this. The social worker also identifies that these boys may benefit from having two carers given the boys will have differing needs and need a high level of attention.
37. I am of course acutely conscious that these boys are Polish by heritage and were in effect growing up in a Polish world, albeit in the UK, prior to these proceedings beginning. The social worker was clear that she was committed to finding a family who would meet all of the children’s needs including their cultural and language needs. In her final statement she says the local authority would initially consider carers who are Polish in origin and those who have a family connection or have lived in Poland for a considerable amount of time. A search nationally shows there are three families who are Polish speaking and who would consider a sibling set of two. Equally the social worker was very open to assessing any family identified in Poland, initially by Skype as would be normal in a case such as this, and if adopters in Poland were felt to be the best match with the boys the local authority would pursue a Hague Convention adoption. The social worker was firm in her views though that, whilst entirely accepting the importance of culture and heritage for these boys, she would not prioritise that over and above the boys’ other needs as it was important to find somebody who would meet all of their needs if possible.
38. Next, I turn to look at any harm within the meaning of the Children Act 1989 which the boys have suffered or are at risk of suffering. The mother conceded that at the beginning of these proceedings the boys had suffered and were at risk of suffering significant harm, that being more than made out on the evidence. She does not accept however they would be at risk of suffering significant harm now were they to be back in her care. The mother’s case seems to be she has done some of work on her issues, enough for her to know what is needed, and that therefore I can be confident these problems would not arise again. Sadly, I do not share her optimism. She has not engaged properly either in work around her alcohol misuse nor around domestic abuse. Serious domestic abuse has been present in her last two relationships and there is a likelihood therefore it may be a feature in future relationships. There is no evidence that she understands why this would be harmful to her children. And there is nothing to suggest she would not continue to binge drink. The work with the substance misuse agency cannot reassure me as she told them she did not have a problem and she was discharged, meaning nothing in terms of whether she has learned her lessons and changed.
39. I acknowledge that long-term separation of the boys from their mother brings the risk of emotional harm. X in particular has a greater knowledge of his mother and it is hard to conceive of how a young child makes sense at the absence of a parent from his life. However, that harm can be ameliorated by work being done with him at an age-appropriate level, and the same for Y.
40. If I look at how capable the mother is of meeting the boys’ needs, I have already addressed this to some extent above. She may well have the capacity to give good enough care when she is not drinking and not in a violent relationship but I cannot be sure she will not return to that situation. On her own evidence, she binge drinks when stressed, as that was her explanation for drinking last autumn. I know nothing though about what causes her stress, but we know it includes when she has care of her children as that was the situation last summer before the boys were removed. I am not satisfied she could meet the boys’ needs, nor can I be confident she would engage with services who could assist her in this given her track record.
41. I know that carers identified by the local authority, whether here or in Poland, would have been both assessed and trained to ensure that they can meet the children’s needs and the matching process will ensure carers who are able to meet the needs of these particular boys can be found.
42. I am very aware that the boys are going to have a change in their circumstances, whatever decision I make, be that to return to their mother or to move to foster care or adoptive parents. That is going to be hard for them to understand but I know the social worker will ensure the boys are prepared for that, whatever the move might be.
43. It is very important that I consider the likely effect on the boys throughout their lives of having ceased to be a member of his original family and becoming adopted children. Alongside that I must consider the relationship the boys have with their mother and their extended family. If I decide they should not return to their mother than their future lives will be immeasurably different, as is the case for any children in this situation. There is the added complication here of the children’s heritage which I am clear is very important, whilst not being a pre-eminent factor. As I have said earlier in this judgment, the boys were growing up in a Polish family in this country and their heritage, their language, their culture, should be maintained if at all possible. From the evidence I have though, if the boys cannot return home then all the alternatives have the potential, if not a guarantee, for being culturally appropriate.
44. I do of course acknowledge that if the boys are adopted they will lose a real relationship with their mother, their grandparents, their uncle, and also the potential maybe for a relationship with their fathers if the mother were able to identify those persons. Their relationship with their mother has been significantly lessened by her inconsistent attendance at contact but that does not mean the boys will not feel its loss. I have to balance that though against the meeting of all the boys’ other needs and in this case, important though that relationship is, it cannot outweigh the other considerations.
45. Finally, I am required to consider the ascertainable wishes and feelings of the children concerned regarding the decision, considered in the light of their age and understanding. In this case the reality is that the boys are too young for them to have any wishes as to their future. I acknowledge it can be assumed a child would want to live in their birth family if that were safely possible.
46. So, I turn to look at the options available to me. The first is for the boys to return to their mother’s care. It follows inevitably from what I have said above that this option is not attractive. The boys’ needs would be met no better than they were last summer and they would continue to be at risk of experiencing harm, most particularly when their mother was drinking or when in a violent relationship. If living with her they would of course be growing up in the culture they were born into, would be speaking Polish at home, and would have an uncomplicated situation in terms of their family structure.
47. I have thought carefully about the boys being placed in a foster placement in Poland, where they would have their practical needs met, including their cultural needs, and would have the potential for a relationship with their mother, depending on where she was and upon the views of the Polish authorities. I am conscious thought we are here talking about children who are very young, both under four. They need to have the most normal home life possible, to have security and dependable carers for the whole of their childhoods and beyond. Children in foster care, certainly in this country, have far less guarantee of a settled life than children who are adopted. Statistics are worrying in terms of how children move between placements and how they achieve less well. These children are young enough to have a chance of a single permanent placement for the rest of their lives, a family who they would be part of forever, and that is hugely important.
48. The final option to consider is that of adoption. In that scenario the children would be safe and their practical needs would be met. They would have a ‘forever family’, a secure and predictable future. There is every hope that their cultural needs could be met in an adoptive placement, be that in the UK or Poland from what is known about potential carers and I am entirely satisfied that the local authority are open to both options. It would mean the loss of family relationships but in this particular case I am satisfied the children’s need for security and stability throughout their childhoods outweigh that.
49. I am conscious that the making of an adoption order is draconian, indeed it is hard to imagine an order that is more serious in its implications for a family, but here I am satisfied it is necessary, that it is a proportionate order in terms of protecting the children and balancing all their needs. So, having carried out the balancing exercise that I must, I am satisfied that there is no realistic prospect of the boys being returned safely to their mother’s care, and that their needs for stability and permanence can only be met in an adoptive placement. I am satisfied that the local authority’s final care plan for X and Y is proportionate and (in the context of both s1(1) Children Act 1989 and s1(2) Adoption and Children Act 2002) in their best welfare interests. I therefore make a care order. I am also satisfied that X and Y’s welfare requires me to dispense with the mother’s consent to placing them for adoption, the word “require” here having the Strasbourg meaning of necessary, “the connotation of the imperative”.  I therefore make a placement order authorising the local authority to place X and Y for adoption.
50. There is one further direction I wish to make.  I think it is hugely important for children who are adopted that they have information available to them, through their adoptive parents, so they can make sense of their early life.  This judgment, in setting out what I have read and heard in court, gives at least a summary of that start. Whilst it will be placed in an anonymised form in the public domain it is important that it is easily available to those who will be bringing X and Y up.  I propose therefore to make a direction that this judgment must be released by the Local Authority to X and Y’s adopters so that it is available to them in future life; that release however is on the basis that it should not be disclosed beyond them or any medical or therapeutic staff working with the child or family.  And if the boys are placed in Poland, I direct that the local authority shall provide the adopters with a copy of this judgment translated into Polish. It is very important therefore that the judgment is passed on to the Adoption Team to give to the adopters. I have written this not for the benefit of the adults but for the children and wish to be sure it reaches them.
51. Finally, I also make orders reserving any future applications in respect of the boys to myself if available and for public funding assessment for all the respondents in this matter.  I hope that my reasons as given are sufficient but if the advocates require any further detail to be given I would ask them to let me know. 

___________________________________________________________________

Schedule of Threshold findings in satisfaction of the threshold criteria pursuant to

s 31(2) of the Children Act 1989

 ___________________________________________________________________

At the time the local authority undertook protective measures X and Y were suffering and were likely to suffer significant physical and emotional harm attributable to the care given to them by their mother, namely:

1.                  On or before 21^st August 2017 Y suffered significant physical harm;

(i)                 0.5cm x 0.5cm yellow, green bruise on right abdomen

(ii)               3cm x 1.5cm brown/yellow bruise on right anterior thigh

(iii)             0.5cm x 0.5cm yellow, green bruise on right abdomen

(iv)             0.7cm x 0.7cm blue discolouration on left shoulder

(v)               0.5 cm x 0.5cm bruise on lateral right thigh

2.                  The harm detailed above at paragraph 1 was caused to Y whilst he was in the care of his Mother and were the result of the parenting Y received falling below what it is reasonable for him to receive, including;

(i)                 Inadequate supervision being provided to Y by the adults caring for them including Mother; and

(ii)               Mother being unable to provide any or any reasonable care to Y due to the effect on her of substance misuse

3.                  At the time that Y suffered the physical harm detailed above at paragraph 1 by reason of the facts at paragraph 2 X was likely to suffer significant physical harm in the care of his Mother.

4.                  As at 21/08/17 X and Y were suffering and were likely to suffer significant physical and emotional harm resulting from;

(i)                 Direct exposure to domestic abuse between the Mother and Z including; 09/05/17 Z assaulted Mother in the presence of the children. Z received a 2 year conditional discharge for that offence.

(ii)               Exposure to the Mother’s abuse of alcohol and her inability at times of intoxication to meet the needs of the children to a reasonable standard; specific incidents relied upon include 15/05/17 and 21/08/17.

(iii)             The chaotic lifestyle of the Mother.  Incidents relied upon include placing her relationship with Z above the children’s needs including having contact with Z on 15/05/17 in breach of his bail conditions and returning to live with Z on 23/07/17 when she knew the relationship was violent and the home conditions at the house were inadequate.

(iv)             Inadequate supervision of the children by the Mother

(v)               An unwillingness or inability of the Mother to maintain the children’s basic home condition to a consistently good enough standard.