BAILII
British and Irish Legal Information Institute


Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information

[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges)


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges) >> M & G, Re (Care and Placement) [2025] EWFC 134 (B) (17 April 2025)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2025/134.html
Cite as: [2025] EWFC 134 (B)

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]

Neutral Citation Number: [2025] EWFC 134 (B)
Case No: ZW24C50107

IN THE FAMILY COURT AT WEST LONDON

West London Family Court
Gloucester House, 4 Duke Green Avenue,
Feltham, TW14 0LR
17 April 2025

B e f o r e :

His Honour Judge Willans
____________________

Between:
LONDON BOROUGH OF [ ]
Applicant
- and –

(1) [the mother]
(2) [the father]
(3) M and
(4) G (the Third and Fourth Respondents by their Children's Guardian)
Respondents

Re M & G (Care and Placement)

____________________

Judith Pepper (instructed by SLLP Law) for the Applicant
William Tautz (instructed by MT UK Solicitors) for the First Respondent
The Second Respondent acted as a Litigant in Person
Peter Horrocks (instructed by Lovell Chohan solicitors) for the Third and Fourth Respondents

Hearing dates: 31 March – 3 and 17 April 2025

____________________

HTML VERSION OF JUDGMENT
____________________

Crown Copyright ©

    HHJ Willans:

    Introductory Points

  1. The Court is required to resolve a dispute as to the future plans for sibling sisters, N and G, aged 6 and 3 respectively. The applicant local authority has applied for care and placement orders with a plan for adoption. The children's guardian supports this planning. The parents remain within a relationship and firmly oppose the application arguing the threshold for the making of public law orders is not crossed and that the children should be immediately returned to their care. I have taken into account the papers contained within the hearing and supplemental hearing bundle; the written and oral submissions made by counsel and the evidence received from the witnesses who came to Court. Some additional documents were supplied during the hearing. I will not refer to all of this information within this judgment, but I continue to bear it all in mind. This was a hybrid hearing and both the expert psychologist, Dr Maggs, and the previous foster carer attended remotely. The children's father also attended remotely albeit for only parts of the hearing. He has throughout the proceedings continued to work overseas and chose to do so up to and during the final hearing. The nature of his employment means he could not attend at all times, and he experienced a variable line connection. It is important to make clear that there was nothing preventing him returning to the jurisdiction for the currency of the proceedings other than the financial impact of doing so would have on the family unit. The father has chosen not to have legal representation. At times during the proceedings the mother was also without representation.
  2. Background

  3. The family originate from [Asian country] and are of Catholic faith and share an association with Portugal. In February 2022 the family were in Portugal when the mother gave birth to G at 25 weeks gestation. This extreme prematurity led to G spending many months in hospital and during this period the family came into conflict with medical authorities leading to a court process which continued until July 2023, when G was discharged from hospital, following which the family immediately left for the UK. G's health is impacted by a range of complications arising from her prematurity including eye related issues. This led the family into contact with medical authorities in this jurisdiction. A level of disagreement arose as to the vitality of G's right eye and the family planned a removal to India to seek medical treatment in that jurisdiction. When this was discovered, the applicant brought these proceedings claiming a need to safeguard the welfare of G. The Applicant issued proceedings and obtained a without notice interim care order relating to G only. However, the circumstances surrounding the removal attendance was so difficult that police attended and at the conclusion of the visit N had also been taken into police protection. I first heard the case as an appeal against that interim removal. I upheld the appeal but considered an interim order was required and made a replacement interim care order. The children have remained in care throughout the proceedings. Initially together, they were placed in separate placements shortly therafter and have subsequently exerienced placement breakdowns and remain in separate placements. There have been problems with contact and for a period the children were not seeing their mother, their father being overseas throughout. This was recently resolved, and contact has recommenced.
  4. Threshold

  5. In public law proceedings the first question for a Court is as to whether the legal threshold found in section 31 Children Act 1989 is crossed. Can a child be shown to have suffered significant harm at the relevant date or was significant harm likely if an order were not made? Further is the harm in question attributable to the care being given by the parent and is that care at a level below that to be expected of a reasonable carer? The applicant supported by the guardian contend the threshold is crossed for the reasons set out below.
  6. The applicant claims:
  7. i) G has suffered and is at risk of suffering significant harm due to neglect of her medical conditions and the parents' poor decision making.

    ii) N and G were made subject to protection orders following an extended physical altercation at the home between the family, the police and the local authority resulting in the children being removed from the home and placed under police protection. Since N has been placed into local authority care, the local authority has been made aware that N has been exposed to significant harm due to the parenting she received whilst in the parents' care.

  8. It is for the applicant to prove these allegations by establishing each allegation as being more likely than not to have occurred ('the balance of probabilities'). If established the allegation is treated as a fact in my decision making. If it falls short of this standard it is wholly disregarded. There is no requirement on the parents to disprove an allegation. I will have regard to all the evidence but pay particular regard to the evidence of the parents. I am entitled to have regard to witness demeanor but should guard against the risk that demeanor may not always be the best indicator of where the truth lies. I will be assisted by consistency in the evidence and may have regard to features such as the inherent probability of something occurring - although I keep in mind the fact the Court is invariably being asked to consider circumstances that do not necessarily fall close to normal day to day behaviour. I can have regard to a finding that a party has told lies to me, but I should not allow the lie alone to establish a disputed allegation. Individuals lie for a host of reasons and not all lies are probative as to the truth of a disputed matter. Finally, I should keep in mind the principle that not all unusual or behaviour open to criticism justifies the intervention of the Court. Parents are entitled to make poor decisions and hold contrary views. It is not for the Court to impose a gold standard of parenting.
  9. G has suffered and is at risk of suffering significant harm due to neglect of her medical conditions and the parents' poor decision making.

  10. This allegation spans the parents' engagement with medical care in both Portugal and UK. The key information I have from Portugal can be found at [763-772] whilst I have a supplementary bundle of medical documents arising in this jurisdiction together with documents arising related to an application for medical treatment under the inherent jurisdiction. I heard little if any live evidence in support of this allegation. I heard the evidence of both parents setting out their account of the relevant events.
  11. G was born at the very boundary of viable life and yet she has survived and is now functioning independently albeit her development has been significantly impacted. Whilst the parents appear critical of the Portuguese medical system it was that system that brought G safely through what was a very risky period for her. There can be no doubt this will have been a deeply distressing period for the family. The circumstances of a very early birth and the profound life-threatening circumstances that followed will undoubtedly have been compounded by being out of their country of choice. Any assessment of the parental behaviour must keep this in mind.
  12. The mother contends I should place little weight on the Portuguese documentation on the basis that it is disputed and is not the original source material. In considering this question I have been referred to W-A (Children: Foreign Conviction) [2022] EWCA Civ 1118. I have not been greatly assisted by the authority which focuses on the weight to be given to findings made by a foreign judicial process and their application within proceedings in this country. In this case whilst I have a ruling contained within the Portuguese documentation, I cannot say whether that is more akin to an interim decision founded on 'reasonable grounds for believing' or a settled conclusion founded on similar principles to those applied within this judgment. As such I apply caution when approaching the document. But I do not agree with the suggestion that the document should carry limited or no weight before me. The applicant is entitled to rely on the document in seeking to prove its case. For reasons set out below I find it a persuasive account of what took place in Portugal. I have given appropriate weight to the fact that the underlying witnesses to the account set out in the document have not appeared before me during this hearing. In my assessment this does not rob the document of its essential worth when assessing historical behaviour.
  13. The document from Portugal was received through the Central Authority and is authored by a Judge of the Lisbon District Court. It is a combination of a narrative account of the concerns expressed by the local hospital as to the parents' interaction with the hospital and determinations made by the Court. The accompanying letter seeks an 'immediate and urgent referral' of G's case to social services 'so that the child's medical care can be resumed…as a matter of urgency, in light of the extant danger to the child's life'. I bear in mind the point made on behalf of the mother that whereas the family left Portugal in late July 2023 this letter was not sent via the Central Authority until November 2023. I consider the delay is explained at the end of the document.
  14. I have given full consideration to the contents of the document which I do no more than summarize as follows. G was transferred from the Paediatric Intensive Care Unit to the Special Care Unit at 6 months of age in August 2022. A range of significant medical concerns are recorded all of which relate to her prematurity. The parents are described as being in denial of the reality of their daughter's illness and being distrustful of and aggressive towards the hospital team. They claimed the treatment was harming her and are said to have inappropriately manipulated the medical equipment despite being repeatedly warned against doing so. This led to the hospital taking the case before the Court who ruled restricting the parents access to G and authorising the treatment plan. The parents were prohibited from interrupting or manipulating the clinical process or removing G from the hospital. Thereafter the maternal grandmother took a central role in attending the child in hospital. By January 2023 the mother was felt to be showing no signs to inspire confidence and was set on removing G from hospital with a plan of removal to the UK. The hospital was opposed to this plan unless it was done in collaboration with a UK medical institution who could take over G's care on arrival. Unfortunately, the report indicates the family were not co-operative with such a plan and there was a refusal to provide a UK address. The mother said she would not travel but sought an immediate discharge. The hospital refused as this would have placed the child at risk of significant harm given her ongoing condition. By 5 May 2023 G was medically fit for discharge but this was refused by the Court in the absence of grounds for believing there would be adherence to clinical guidance were she to be returned to her family. By 23 June 2023 social services felt G could be discharged into her grandmother's care however this was delayed on the basis that the mother had not been seen at hospital for some time and it was felt she needed to attend to show an ability to care for the child on discharge. A meeting is said to have taken place on 3 July 2023 at which the terms of agreement for discharge were set. Importantly, this was based on a '1-year protective support measure' which included notification prior to any change of address, adherence to treatment plans and an assessment of the parents as to their parenting competency. G left hospital on 10 July 2023 with a community appointment fixed for 24 July 2023. On 20 July 2023 the hospital emailed the mother who informed that the family had left Portugal and were now in the UK and that G had been registered for medical care. It is stated no family member gave notice of the intended departure. The Portuguese authorities liaised with the NHS in August 2023, but no information was available as to her registration. In November 2023 the Portuguese Consulate in London provided a registered address for the family leading to the letter.
  15. I listened to the parents' evidence with respect to these issues. Whilst I will record the evidence taken from the mother it was clear the mother and father take an identical position. Having listened to each of them I could not say whether one or other was the lead for the approach taken or whether one of them was capable of acting as a restraint to the other's concerns if the same was felt to be unjustified. They appear to have been and continue to be of one mind on the subject. The mother's central explanation for the disagreement with the Portuguese hospital was her concerns over G receiving morphine as part of her treatment plan with a concern over the related impact of the same upon her. Concern was also expressed as to the utilisation of a breathing device placed over G's head. Aside from these points it was difficult to get a sense of how it was that the family had found themselves before the Court at all. Indeed, the mother stated there had been limited involvement with the Court and she had in fact did not attend the meeting cited in the foregoing section. She denied ever agreeing not to leave the country and made the point that she had said in January 2023 she would be leaving when she could. She argued there had been no need for any additional care prior to flying G from Portugal in the days after discharge. She disputed in any way agreeing to the follow-up appointment noted above.
  16. In general terms I found neither parent to be a persuasive witness. On this issue I found their evidence unreliable. It is very clear they have become wholly entrenched in their positions and cannot see an alternative reality irrespective of the evidence supporting the same. They presented as entirely dogmatic in support of their own views. As I will set out below, they demonstrated an inability to consider objective evidence rationally when it conflicted with their own narrative. I appreciate that in reaching this conclusion I have not heard from the Portuguese clinicians, but it must be noted a similar situation arises with respect to their subsequent engagement both with clinicians in this jurisdiction and with nearly all other professionals tasked to work with them. I am entitled to draw on subsequent conduct in assessing likely prior conduct.
  17. Focusing on the time in Portugal I have reached the following clear conclusions: (1) Whilst I do not need to make explicit findings as to particular actions, I accept the broad account recorded in the judicial letter of the parents' oppositional approach to the medical care being provided to G. The account of G's needs makes for expected reading in the light of her profound prematurity. It is deeply concerning that in the early months post birth the family are already distrustful of the care being provided. I can conceive of no reason why the hospital would fabricate such an account let alone in such circumstances bring the matter before a Court unless there was essential truth to their concerns; (2) In the case of the morphine usage the mother seemed unable to engage with the obvious rationale for such usage. G was suffering multiple fractures as a result of issues related to her prematurity (osteopenia of prematurity). This was reported to be causing her pain and there every reason to believe the morphine, to the extent it was prescribed, was used to alleviate her suffering. There may well have been side effects as there are with many treatment plans but I found it surprising the mother could not at least identify the perceived positive of the treatment that need to be set against any negatives; (3) I was also struck by the parents' reference to a head covering device which they appeared to claim was impacting on G. It seemed other children in the specialist ward were also using a head breathing covering. This is hardly surprising in the case of a very young child to ensure consistent oxygen. Yet the parents viewed this suspiciously and gave me the strong impression that their interaction with the device explained the complaints of them interfering with the equipment and suspending the oxygen; (4) It is noteworthy that the parents accept they were restricted in their ongoing access to G yet were unable to explain why this was the case. In these proceedings they have consistently communicated with the Court seeking the termination of the interim care arrangements. Yet in Portugal they appear to have accepted a significant infringement to their family life without demur. I am left to assume they were more aware of the issues in play at the time than they now accept; (5) On any reading of the account the parents failed to understand the serious circumstances facing their daughter. I accept they pursued discharge at a time when she was unfit to be discharged and were unaccepting of the need for significant ongoing care. The strong impression from her evidence is that the mother was very much underplaying or misunderstanding her daughter's profound care needs. I agree had she been removed at the time they wished then she would have been at risk of very serious harm; (6) I do not accept the mother's case of not being involved in the discussions and meeting referenced above. I can conceive of no reason as to why (a) she would not be invited to be involved and (b) why the record would suggest she attended if she did not. It was after all her wish to have G discharged and the account given strongly suggests she played a part in the discussion as recorded. I am in no doubt she was present when the terms of discharge were considered and agreed. In any event I am sure she was fully aware of the stipulations that ultimately governed discharge; (7) I am in no doubt G was discharged into the care of the family on condition she remain in Portugal - or at least until such time as appropriate liaison could be established with UK counterparts. Clear evidence for this is found in the terms put in place as a condition of discharge. Support is also found in both the setting of a review appointment and the chaser messages sent to the parents after discharge; (8) I found the mother's case in this regard wholly unpersuasive. Her argument that she had made it clear in January 2023 that she would leave pays no regard at all to the subsequent steps and conversations had in the following months. It is an entirely implausible fig leaf with which she seeks to cover her decision making. There is no doubt in my mind that the parents were planning to leave whilst informing the hospital that if G was discharged, they would not. In his evidence the father told me he had been planning the move since June 2023; (9) This decision-making placed G at risk of significant harm. Little if any thought appears to have been given to the risks to G of international travel at that time. She remained medically vulnerable and had suffered a recent respiratory incident. A move could have been countenanced if managed appropriately and I note the clinical team were willing to offer support, but it is clear this move was done without any appropriate pre-planning. This can be seen from the fact that G's first medical check in the UK was to bring her to accident and emergency and present the triage team with her Portuguese discharge document.
  18. I have been asked to clarify the failure within this judgment to reference the medical document found at [84-91]. I agree I have not directly referenced the document but I do not agree this has a material impact on this judgment. The document provides a detailed summary of the medical challenges and circumstances facing G. I have had full regard to this and indeed reference this in summary in §10 above. I do not consider it to have been necessary to have provided an exhaustive medical summary within this judgment. I note I have specificially addressed the section highlighted within that document in my consideration of the cicumstances underlying suggested morphine treatment. I note it is said this failure fails to have regard to positive evidence of parental engagement. To the extent this is correct it is very limited and does not undermine reliance on the letter referenced above.
  19. In summary the period in Portugal can be seen to have been one which undoubtedly caused the family great stress and upset. I give full allowance for that. However, they had time in situ to reflect on their daughter's medical needs as the weeks and months passed. Yet they consistently favoured their own needs and opinions over the clear and sensible medical advice being given. In doing so they lost sight of their daughter's needs, acted contrary to the care she required and placed her at risk of significant harm.
  20. Sadly, despite the parents achieving their aim of moving to this jurisdiction matters did not appreciably improve so far as communication with clinicians was concerned. I note the following in support of this contention: (1) I have records created by the Physiotherapy and Speech and Language Therapy (SALT) Teams [758-762]. This covers the period through August 2023 to January 2024. It is noteworthy that notwithstanding the agreed importance to G of physiotherapy a period of some 6 weeks passed prior to her first assessment. This rather restates the lost opportunity of joined up care being planned prior to departure. The first assessment notes reluctance on the part of the mother as to referrals to occupational therapy, portage and a paediatrician. Later there was reluctance to a referral to SALT and a block of physiotherapy was declined. In November and December 2023 appointments were not kept and calls were not answered. By late December safeguarding concerns were noted and a strategy meeting planned. It is likely this followed the receipt of information from Portugal as the parents had not shared any of the Portuguese history. There was a problematic meeting on 12 January 2024, which overrun given challenges in agreeing a shared outcome. In the light of the circumstances the team sought management supervision. On 17 January 2024 it was discovered G had two NHS patient records leading to one team being unaware of the safeguarding concerns arising. A summary of therapy [753] notes progress but also records difficulties with engaging the parents as to appointments and consistent application of therapy advice; (2) A specific concern arose as to G's eyesight related to her prematurity. I have been taken to the Portuguese discharge documentation which indicates the situation is at stage 1 retinopathy of prematurity (being a lower level of concern) [695]. It is not clear to me as to whether this is an accurate assessment at the date of discharge or whether it reflects an earlier time during the period of admission (the document I have seen suggests this was from 2022). However, the parents rely upon this as founding the status of the child's eyesight whilst in Portugal. Concern was raised in this jurisdiction first by the Chelsea and Westminster Hospital with G then being referred to GOSH. I note the documents at [718]/ [750] and in the statement of the Consultant Ophthalmologist a clear account setting out that the right eye is inoperable due to a failure of likely treatment in Portugal and resultant scarring. Such failure occurs in 5-10% of such babies. The expert is clear this has resulted in right eye blindness with the right eye being at end state stage 5 retinopathy of prematurity. It is clear from the evidence that this deterioration must have occurred at some point following the less guarded stage 1 assessment in Portugal. The medical advice was of a need for urgent investigation of the left eye to assess its viability and to consider appropriate intervention to prevent G becoming wholly blind.
  21. It was in these circumstances that the parents proposed a trip to [Asian Country] for a second (likely third given the C&W and GOSH assessments) opinion. They rely on advice that a stage 5 status is operable. I do not reject the notion that a stage 5 status is operable, but I do not consider anything turns on this given the assessment undertaken at GOSH by the specialist was that this stage 5 was inoperable due to significant scarring. The parents approached the proposed trip openly seeking permission from the school. The trip was said to be for several months and was also cast as having a potential holiday element in addition to further medical advice. It was this planning which led the applicant to become concerned that history was repeating itself, that G was once again being removed whilst requiring ongoing care and that were she to be permitted to travel she might suffer significant harm and might not return. This was in the context of a growing level of disquiet as to the mother's engagement with the clinical team around the child.
  22. The evidence from the parents was clear. They had notified their intention to travel for medical advice and treatment and were seeking a second opinion. They planned to return. In considering this plan of action I must allow an appropriate level of latitude for differential parental decision making. To a significant extent parents must be permitted to seek out care for their children and this has to include reasonable requests for further assistance and advice. There will be many parents faced by a challenging medical crisis who hold onto hope and at times look to alternative strategies. The Court has to be cautious in becoming overly paternalistic in this regard. However, in this case it is also important to bear in mind the actual position taken by the parents. When questioned they veered between arguing G retained sight in her right eye and commenting that they would no longer now travel given the contrary advice received. I was left in no doubt their very clear opinion is that G can see through her right eye. I am less clear now as to whether they believe there is a continuing benefit in seeking further advice or treatment. It is concerning that they continue to express conviction as to her retained sight given the clear and reasoned expert evidence to the contrary. I appreciate no parent would want to hear an outcome of this nature, but it is set out in the clearest terms. Neither parent impresses as lacking in intelligence, and it is difficult to understand how they have reconciled their minds to the contrary. To support their position the mother references and misapplies various words found within the reports as supporting her position. So, one can find reference to the right eye being comfortable. However, this is not intended to suggest it is viable simply that it is not causing G pain. Elsewhere a reference to glasses not being required is taken to mean there is no eyesight problem. Yet these observations are made within evidence that is plain as to the status of the right eye. The guardian commented as to her meeting with G and the fact that only her left eye follows what is happening.
  23. The difficulty with all of this is the promotion of a hopeless plan of action over clear medical opinion. The related difficulty is that such a plan of action would once again shift G's caring environment (which extends beyond ophthalmology) with very unclear details as to the form of clinical care she would receive were she to travel. At the time of her proposed trip concerns were compounded by a pressing need to investigate the left eye. In the course of the hearing counsel for the mother suggested it had been unreasonable to invoke the inherent jurisdiction given the parents consented to the order made. That point is only good so far as it goes. As the Judge with responsibility for the application I remember the position of the parents which appeared highly equivocal such that an order was required to ensure there was not a last-minute change of heart and a cancellation of the proposed investigation. The real concern was that this might delay treatment and lead to a permanent loss of sight. It is very far from clear as to what thought was given to the care for the left eye let alone the range of physiotherapy and other needs when the travel plans were being considered. These concerns are not speculative. On the evidence before me G in fact lost her eyesight in her right eye at some point between Portugal and February 2024 at the latest. It is not lost on me that the parents continue to claim she left Portugal with sight in her right eye. It appears lost on the parents that this means she lost this sight during a period of poor engagement following a poorly planned move on their part.
  24. I am asked to clarify my observation as to 'equivocation on the part of the parents' supporting the need for an order. My sense and recollection of these proceedings is that the position is the parents was variable around this time. They had indeed indicated they did not oppose the treatment but had previously been oppositional. As the relevant order makes clear they did oppose an order being made and my judgment (which has not been obtained) was that an order was required given the potential for disruption of the process if an order was not made. However, this observation in any event was provided to address a point made on behalf of the parents. It had no material impact on the decision made.
  25. This analysis demonstrates a high level of consistency in the parents' behaviour between Portugal and the UK. In both scenarios they have been oppositional to the medical care proposed for the child and have become entrenched in their disagreement with clinical teams. Their approach has been surrounded by a lack of rational consideration and a focus on what they believe to be best over the plain welfare needs of G. When listening to the mother I was told they would no longer travel to India were the children returned to their care. I asked myself whether this was any different in truth to the agreement given to the Portuguese authorities not to leave Portugal and which was immediately breached when the opportunity arose. After all the mother could travel and say to me that she had previously told this court she wished to travel. Putting all of the evidence together there is a sound basis to question whether the family would have returned had they travelled to India.
  26. A feature of the case is the parents' repeated reference to three pages of the medical documentation relating to G (which is itself around 600 pages). These three pages have been redacted by GOSH. When asked about this GOSH explained [834-5] in clear terms that this was information pertaining to a separate patient which had been incorrectly pulled into this data disclosure and was thus redacted. The parents challenge this explanation and suggest that this feature explains a misdiagnosis of G with it being suggested the diagnosis has incorrectly relied upon the contents of the other patients' records. The parents claim the documents have been redacted to cover up the hospital's error. The parents have no evidential basis for making this suggestion which is not capable of being reconciled with the direct clinical assessment of the child in February 2024 and which led to the actual diagnosis of loss of sight. This feature further adds to the sense that the parents have lost a sense of reality around the issues which confront their daughter and have allowed themselves to be improperly distracted away from the real issues in the case.
  27. I have been asked to clarify my use of the phrase that the information was 'pulled into this data'. It is suggested there is no evidence for this conclusion. I believe this point is incorrect. I referenced the letter from GOSH (which I accepted) and which states: "We have explained to [the mother's] legal representative on several occasions, that the redacted pages include third party information which pulled through the release of information in error." I can see I have somewhat misquoted the words used but the sense is the same. My conclusion follows from this evidence.
  28. I am satisfied this allegation has been made out to the necessary standard. The parents have demonstrated poor decision making over a sustained period so far as G's medical needs are concerned. It has only been the intervention of state agencies (both here and in Portugal) that has safeguarded G against this decision making. The evidence suggests G would have likely suffered significant harm had they been free to follow their own wishes in this regard. It is important to note this is not a function of one medical issue but appears to range over the full package of care needs required for G. I judge this is not a difference in respect of a particular form of intervention but is more profound impacting on fundamentally all services being provided. It is difficult to fully comprehend the source of this level of disagreement, but its presence is clear, and it is difficult to understand quite how it might be resolved to a satisfactory level.
  29. I appreciate the structure of my findings does not follow the threshold document closely. Turning to that I note 1(a) is the foundation facts for what follows rather than an allegation. I make the finding at 1(b) and (c) although the mother breached an agreement not an order. I also make the findings at (d)-(f). For the avoidance of doubt, I conclude this decision making was shared parental decision making, indeed included family decision making given the role of the maternal grandmother in Portugal, her perceived role in supporting discharge and the fact she travelled and remains with the mother here in the UK.
  30. N and G were made subject to protection orders following an extended physical altercation at the home between the family, the police and the local authority…resulting in the children being removed from the home and placed under police protection. Since N has been placed into local authority care, the local authority has been made aware that N has been exposed to significant harm due to the parenting she received whilst in the parents' care.

  31. This allegation has two parts relating to (a) the removal of the children and (b) subsequent allegations made by N of being hit and locked in a room. I received limited evidence as to (a), the focus being on the decision to seek a without notice order rather than the circumstances of the removal. As to (b) I heard from G's Foster Carer. The mother's evidence in regard to (b) was essentially a blank denial of any such conduct.
  32. The removal

  33. There is no doubt the circumstances of the removal would have been upsetting for and harmful to the children. I agree with the mother in this regard as does the social worker who attended. Of course, it must also be borne in mind that for the family this would have been deeply unsettling and distressing. An order was obtained without notice (for G alone) on 21 March 2024 in circumstances in which the mother had indicated an intention to leave the jurisdiction for [Asian Country] on 28 March 2024 and the mother was confronted at her door by social services armed with an order requiring her to give up her care of G. This has to be seen in the context of their previous interaction with social services in Portugal. Allowance has to be given for a natural parental response including disbelief and perhaps legitimate challenge to the authenticity of the suggested order.
  34. An account of these events is found at [244]. Given there is a limited dispute it can be briefly summarised as follows. On arrival the maternal grandmother and N were out. The mother called them back and invited the social worker into the house. On the grandmother's return home there was an emotionally heightened conversation with raised voices and a clear unwillingness to comply with the order. The family alleged the local authority was working with the Portuguese authorities who had made the child blind and has been experimenting on her. At points the mother claimed to be calling the BBC, the family made a scene in the street and caused neighbours to be involved in what was happening. In total the incident continued for around 4 hours with both children in close proximity to the heightened emotions of all three family members present. The police were called, and the family would not comply with their requests and ultimately the grandfather was arrested and was later in the incident stating he would kill himself. The adults would not listen and were shouting over others. The situation was such that the plan changed from removing G alone to one of removing both children for their own protection. When this was attempted, the grandmother would not let go of G causing concern as to her physical safety. Eventually G was prised from her hands and N was removed kicking and screaming from the home. The mother [265] accepts this was an extremely upsetting incident and that she and her parents were in a highly agitated state. She explains this was due to the circumstances of the removal and the heavy-handed manner in which it was executed. She agreed it would have been highly distressing for N, but the removal was more damaging. What happened could only be understood properly in the context of the removal. I have some real sympathy with the position taken by the mother in this regard. It must have been deeply upsetting and concerning to be confronted in this way. I bear in mind there had been prior local authority conversations, but this would not have prepared the family for the removal. The difficulty however should not be viewed simply in the first moments of interaction but in the sustained challenging behaviour which continued when it should have been clear that a Court order had been made and there would be enforcement of the same. Notwithstanding the challenging circumstances it required the family to show some insight as to the impact their behaviour was having in exacerbating an already difficult situation. It is clear to me that whatever the mitigating factors the family members wholly lost sight of the impact their response was likely to have and in fact was having on the children.
  35. In my judgment it is inescapable that this led to significant emotional harm to both children and that ultimately the harm derived from the conduct of the family carers not being that which would be expected from a reasonable parent. In my judgment this incident alone would not justify the outcome being sought. I find allegation (a) proven.
  36. Allegation of improper care

  37. This final allegation relates to conversations had between N and the Foster Carer in the month following removal. The relevant diary logs and foster care notes are found in the bundle at section G with relevant email communications found at [786-91]. No ABE or equivalent has been undertaken. I can summarise the developing reports as follows. (1) It is clear N was quiet when she was first placed but the records suggest she became more outgoing within about a week. She struggled with sleeping on her own and toileting in the initial period; (2) By the end of the first week she made suggestions as to the state of her home environment being unclean [890]/[959]; (3) On 5 April 2024 she spoke about children at school not having 'kind hands' and hitting and commented the mother 'only has a little bit of kind hands'; (4) On 7 April 2024 N referred to her mother hitting G; (5) In general terms contact with her mother was positive but on 19 April 2024 she made clear she didn't want to go home with her mother; (6) On 22 April 2024 N commented 'not to lock her in' a point she returned to on a number of occasion; (7) On 23 April 2024 N said she wanted to grow up with the Foster Carer and commented that her mother beat her, as did her grandparents and uncle and aunt; (8) On 25 April 2024 N repeated about not being locked in. When asked why she was saying this she said that her mother locked her and G in the room and went out. As a result of the above the Foster Carer made a short video of N reporting some of the matters mentioned above and provided it to the social worker. I have seen this video along with some other videos and photographs.
  38. The Foster Carer denied she had encouraged or coached N to say any of these things. She explained that she had recorded the video as she felt she needed to provide a record to the social worker and N said she would not tell the social worker but was willing to provide a recording. She accepted it was unusual that whereas N was reported at this time as being very reticent to speak to third parties she had 'opened up' to her within days of being placed into her care. She was also challenged as to number of photos taken by her and the actions, she was allowing the child to engage in. It was made clear on behalf of the mother that it was for the local authority to prove this point and for the mother to disprove nothing. As such she left open the possibility that either (i) the Foster Carer had fabricated the allegations, or (ii) she had manipulated the account by coaching or other encouragement, or (iii) that she had done neither of these things, but the allegations made by N were untrue.
  39. Having heard the Foster Carer, I reject each of the first two suggestions above. She impressed me as a balanced witness who was doing her best to safeguard the child in the circumstances. I share the view of the local authority that she was at worst misguided but well intentioned in making the video. However, I do not judge that fundamentally reshapes the issue as I accept it is no more than a repetition of what had in fact been previously said by the child. There was absolutely nothing in the evidence to suggest she was inappropriately acting to raise false allegations or coaching the child. Whilst it is clear she was concerned by what was being said to her there is nothing in the notes to suggest an inherent bias against the mother or the family. In reaching this view I wholly reject the various criticisms levelled at her arising out of photos shared showing the child helping to paint and helping with washing the clothes. In each case the photo/video shows nothing out of the ordinary and appears to me to be a regular part of family life. I bear in mind a tendency on the part of the mother to raise unfair criticisms of this carer. When G fell and suffered a bruise around her eye the mother claimed she had been punched by the carer. She had absolutely no basis for this allegation save for the presence of a small bruise which was explained by the account given.
  40. The issue for me is as to whether N was telling the truth when she made the allegations. In this regard I do not consider myself to be helped by the expert assessment of her. I note there are surrounding circumstances which suggest her to be an anxious child, but I am unwilling at this point to attribute this to being poorly treated as it is equally consistent with the circumstances of removal from her family life and other surrounding circumstances. There are a number of pointers against the truth of the allegations: (1) The clear evidence that the parents very much love their children and have shown commitment to them; (2) The inherent improbability of certain aspects of the allegations including kicking G and all family members being involved; (3) The absence of injuries on either child; (4) Supporting character evidence as to the parents and their bond with their children; (5) Evidence questioning whether the property in question had locks such that the child could be 'locked in'. Against this are factors which support the essential truth of the allegations as follows: (1) The simple fact the allegations were made by a child said to have a good relationship with the parents; (2) The manner in which the allegations were raised in a gradual and developing fashion; (3) The timing of the allegations being raised so shortly after removal from the family home and at a time when it might be thought she would be most loyal to her family; (4) The surrounding anxiety and behaviour expressed by the child around the time of the allegations which might suggest this was her revealing a difficult emotional experience; (5) The inherent improbability of a child with a strong bond to her mother making such allegations untruthfully in the days following removal.
  41. There are aspects to the 'allegations' which I do not consider meet a threshold assessment. The suggestions as to the cleanliness of the house take the case nowhere. There is no consistent evidence of a poor environment such that should concern the Court and there is room for ambiguity as to what the child was expressing when she talked for instance about water on the floor.
  42. There are allegations which I am not satisfied have been established on the balance of probabilities. This includes suggestions of G being kicked which I find unlikely. This conclusion means I must approach the other allegations with real caution, but it does not mean they should be completely disregarded as likely to also be untrue. It is plausible that this was added so that N was not seen as isolated regarding such treatment. Children can often wish to not stand out or be the sole focus of attention and this claim may have been added to broaden the picture. Having assessed all the evidence, I am satisfied there is essential truth to the allegation of being hit and being locked in. I appreciate and accept the evidence presented as to no internal locks in the property, but this does not mean the child was not left in the house locked in whilst her mother was out. Such a scenario would be consistent with the allegation. I find something of this nature did take place. I find the consistent repetition of the point and the manner in which it was said to be persuasive evidence in support. I do not find the carer through her actions manipulated or generated the allegation. I also find there has been a level of hitting of the child. I limit my finding to the allegation made against the mother. The child in speaking of 'not kind hands' provided an authentic child-based account of her feelings and experiences in my assessment. I find it most unlikely she would have simply made up these allegations against her mother in the circumstances as detailed. Her allegation calls for an explanation and the only explanation I can properly identify is that there is truth in what was being said. That being said it is difficult, indeed almost impossible, to calibrate what this equates to. I accept there has been physical chastisement that has left a clear impression on the child, but I cannot go further with the allegation than that. Equally I accept to some extent she has been left alone as described but I cannot put a quantum of time on the experience. I do accept that in each case this conduct crosses the threshold to be behaviour that caused or was likely to cause significant harm. Whilst this could be physical in my assessment it is better understood as causing emotional harm. Turning to the threshold document I find items 2(a), (c) and (f) established. I have also made a separate finding as to the events surrounding the point of removal.
  43. Welfare Analysis

  44. Establishing the threshold crossed as I do is no more than a gateway into investigating the appropriate outcome for the children. I am now empowered to make the orders sought by the applicant, but I am not required to do so. In considering what is the right outcome for each child I must have regard to their welfare as my paramount consideration. In this case I consider this through section 1(4) Adoption and Children Act 2002 and remind myself that this assessment is intended to be a lifelong assessment. I keep in mind the reality that a plan for adoption is a most extreme outcome for the child and family and is at the boundaries of permissible state intervention. All of the family members have a right to respect for their private family life and I can only interfere in the manner sought if to do so is a proportionate response to the situation before me. Before taking such a serious step I must consider whether a lesser form of intervention would address the concerns. In short, I should approve a plan for adoption only if nothing else will do. In considering what else may do I reflect on the realistic options placed before the Court and assess these against each other through a holistic approach. The realistic options in this case focus upon the plan of the applicant and the argument of the parents for an immediate return home. The only other option would be a final care order with a plan of long term foster care. There are no other family members available to care for the children. The grandmother was to be subject to assessment but withdrew earlier in the proceedings.
  45. In my assessment the key welfare feature relates to the intersection of risk of harm and the ability of the parents to provide a secure environment in which the children can develop and have their needs met. I need to be clear that this case has not involved a single-issue dispute aside from which there are no issues. It would be understandable and likely not a matter for this Court were the parents to have differed in their view as to the proposed medical treatment for the left eye. Individuals can disagree and hold differing views without finding themselves within care proceedings. But that is not the case before me. In contrast this has been a case in which the parents have over a sustained period prioritised what they consider best in respect of a range of matters to the detriment of the child. They have been resistant to much of the advice given and have acted in a manner without thought to the welfare implications for their child. This has been a sustained pattern of behaviour throughout G's life. There is little basis for believing that this approach on their part will change or has now been overtaken with events settling. They continue to come into conflict with almost all professionals and are unwilling to properly engage and co-operate with a process put in place to benefit their children. On the evidence before me it is clear the independent social worker found it almost impossible to carry out her assessment of the mother given the manner in which she engaged. I found the ISW a plausible and professional witness and she spoke in terms of the mother being the most difficult individual to work with over many years of professional experience. Her experience was of the mother being unwilling to engage with the issues that needed to be assessed and dogmatically sticking to her own talking points to the exclusion of the important points for consideration. The father simply did not make himself available for an appropriate assessment by the ISW. The outcome of the assessment was consequently negative. Separate to this the social work team have struggled to engage with the parents in a meaningful way. For a sustained period, the mother was refusing to come to contact notwithstanding the impact this was having on the children. Her rationale for doing so related to allegations made at the Centre of among other things family members attending the unit. Yet there was credible evidence behind this allegation. Earlier in the proceedings N is noted to wave to her Aunt and Uncle when arriving at contact. Later an individual drops a cup to the contact Centre. It is clear to me the mother was again prioritising her own needs over those of the children. This continued despite the encouragement of the guardian and the efforts of the social worker to restart contact. When spoken to about it the mother responded the children could come home. I note the failure of the father to return to this jurisdiction for the purposes of the proceedings. Whilst I heard his evidence as to likely future availability it was striking that he has chosen to remain outside the jurisdiction for the full currency of these proceedings.
  46. A further feature has been the mother's conduct towards the children's placements. Both have now experienced placement breakdown and I accept this is due significantly to the actions and words of the mother. I have noted above her inappropriate criticism of the carer who gave evidence but there is also evidence of the mother implying an understanding of where another carer lived. The reality is that the mother has been shortsighted in her approach and has acted without regard to the needs of the children for stability post-removal. My reading of the carer logs is that N was receiving good care in this first placement, and it is bound to have been harmful to her to have to move. That she did is as a direct result of the mother's attitude to the placement.
  47. The real concern is that there is no sound basis to believe that anything will change were the children to return home. This would of course be acceptable were the concerns to have dissipated or were they set at a low and acceptable level. I do not judge the concerns to fall at a low level and if they were to continue then this would likely to be once again in an environment of isolation and hostility to professionals. G will need ongoing support for years to come and she simply cannot afford her parents to be unwilling to engage with professional support. A separate concern relates to the findings made against the mother with respect to N and an absence of understanding as to what the lived experience was for the children in the circumstances in which this arose. The presentation of the parents and their oppositional approach causes the Court to have a real reservation as to behaviour patterns within the home in moments of heightened emotion. This is sadly a case in which a co-operative and open approach may have paid dividends in both informing the professionals and giving confidence as to what the lived experience for the children would be on return. By their approach to the proceedings, which have endured for close to a year and have thus permitted an opportunity for reflection and change, the parents have largely robbed the Court of such an understanding. I am left with little if any foundation on which to base confidence were the children to now return home. Equally I cannot now pause the proceedings or start again to see if things might be different. I appreciate the proceedings did get off to a very poor start with the making of a without notice order and I have properly taken into account the impact this will have undoubtedly had. But there has been time for reflection and time for a change to be made and for capacity to care to be shown. By not taking this opportunity the parents have let both their children and themselves down. I am left with only this evidence on which to act. I cannot find an evidential basis for concluding the parents can provide a secure environment in which the children's needs can be met within appropriate timescales.
  48. As is clear from my assessment the children have been placed in a position of risk of significant harm and this is likely to continue on a return home. The children do have a relationship with their parents. This is clearer in the case of the mother given the period the father has been away and out of the children's day to day life. It is difficult to attempt to make sense of what it must mean to the children for their father to have been gone throughout this period. Both children have wanted to see their mother. In the case of N this has been the case notwithstanding her allegations albeit she wanted to do so in a controlled environment and expressed a worry about being taken home by her mother. This is what makes the period of non-attendance at contact the most difficult to understand. For my part I find it difficult to reconcile this decision making with the children's wish for contact. However, in considering the children's wishes and feelings I must have regard to their relatively young age and their limited understanding of the decisions that are being considered.
  49. The plan for adoption will have a most profound impact on the children in severing their family life. I do not underplay the emotional impact this will likely have on the children. Whilst it can be mitigated by ongoing contact the prospects of the same need to be realistically factored into the assessment. There is a very real chance that adoption will amount to a complete cessation of the parent-child relationship. Such planning has to be considered in the light of the children's characteristics and identity features. I have noted the mix of their [ ] heritage and Catholic faith. Such a mix will be very difficult to replicate in any replacement family and would amount to a further loss for each child. In their own right these are harmful impacts of such planning which must not be lost sight of when assessing the respective balancing exercise. There is no option in this case which comes with positives alone. I have referenced the capacity of the parents to provide a secure environment in which the needs of the children can be met. These needs are ones shared with all children for consistent and stable loving and predictable care. However, there are special needs which relate to the case including G's need for parents who are engaged with her medical needs and are both advocates for her, but also willing recipients of important advice given to ensure her welfare is promoted.
  50. The options put before the Court are stark and each come with obvious positives and negatives. A return to the family home would best meet the children's identity needs and would ensure their cultural background/faith is fully promoted. There is no question in my mind that they are loved by their parents and wider family and so this would give the best opportunity for this relationship to prosper and be enhanced. It would prevent the future emotional impact of being severed now from family life. So far as can be ascertained it would be the option most consistent with each child's wishes. The challenge and negative of this option surround the likelihood that this would be a return into the same environment described in this judgment and which led to proceedings. There are no grounds to believe the circumstances have changed and so the indication is that this outcome would be surrounded by ongoing failure to meet the children's significant welfare needs. The wealth of evidence gives little basis for believing the parents to whom the children return would be any different in their attitude and behaviour to the ones previously left. To the extent this was harming or likely to harm the children it would likely continue. There is little basis to really believe the parents would now be willing to work co-operatively with professionals.
  51. The plan for adoption addresses the significant concerns and would likely provide an environment in which the needs were met and in which professional advice was properly considered and acted upon. As such important welfare needs would be met and future life expectations enhanced. It would provide the security and confidence which is questioned in the case of the parents. The risks identified would likely be avoided. The children would not experience a life surrounded by conflict between their parents and outside agencies. As such matters would be stable and predictable and provide a positive foundation for the child to develop. Against this are the obvious but important negatives in that the placement would significantly limit if not sever family life. It would struggle to replicate the range of family characteristics which are important to the children. It would likely dislocate the children's cultural ties and make their sense of themselves less easy to comprehend. But most important would be the impact on family ties and contact.
  52. I pause to reflect on what long term foster care would mean for the children. I do so because the profile of the children and the intention to keep them together means that obtaining a placement to adoption cannot be guaranteed. I appreciate my role is not to second guess these prospects but to make this welfare decision on a principled basis: see D-S (A Child: Adoption or Fostering) [2024] EWCA Civ 948. Nonetheless in making my decisions I bear in mind this as a possible outcome. I have considered the family finding evidence which is bound to be somewhat generic at this time given any search is anonymous in character. I bear in mind N's age and G's medical needs. I do not consider finding an adoptive placement will be impossible, but it will be a challenge. If successful it would be better for the children than a future in foster care. For G this would amount to her whole childhood. I accept long term foster care would bring benefits in terms of contact with family, but I cannot overlook the potential for pressures to be put on any placement with subsequent breakdown. I do not believe the family will reconcile themselves to an outcome other than the one they seek. As such any placement must be viewed as vulnerable to breakdown with obvious negative impact on the children including at some point risk of separation from each other. I do not consider long term foster care to be the right outcome for the children although I accept it may end up being the outcome.
  53. Contact

  54. To the extent there was a dispute between the applicant and guardian it related to the extent to which direct contact between parents and children should be pursued on the making of a placement order. Having heard the evidence, I gauge the difference in position as being modest. Armed with the available information the applicant does not support a plan of post adoption contact on the basis that such contact would likely destabilise any placement given the parents conduct within the proceedings. The guardian accepts these challenges but argues for a more active consideration of contact when undertaking any placement search. She accepts the ultimate decision will be for adopters and would not want a search for an open adoption to endanger placement in principle. But she would want there to be a realistic and informed discussion with prospective adopters as to the benefits of contact in particular having regard to the children's cultural and other characteristics. She would set such contact at an identity level being no more than 1-2 occasions per annum. The parents were unable to engage with this notion. I understand why they find this an impossible point to consider.
  55. I consider were I to make such an order that prospective adopters should receive a copy of this judgment and the guardian's analysis alongside any other important documents. They should approach conduct from an informed position. They will not be able to avoid the potential for contact to bring with it challenges but it will be important for them to reflect on the very different but equivalent challenge that may arise in the absence of contact. The guardian rightly points to the modern world in which social media makes tracing people much easier and it is clear that planned arrangements will be easier to manage (even if difficult) than unplanned contact. Any such review would be informed by a meeting with the parents if this can be agreed. On balance I tend to side with the guardian in this regard, but I make clear this is a narrow dispute. The applicant may continue to express a wariness to contact but the question should not be avoided and should be approached on a fair, realistic and informed basis. Were contact to occur then it would be set very much in line with the adopter's judgment. I accept it would likely amount to identity type contact. It would be reviewable and would likely end were the contact to be destabilising.
  56. Conclusions

  57. I am bound to make a decision on the evidence I have received not on what might have been. There has been more than enough opportunity for the Court to receive a clear and positive assessment of the potential each parent has to meet the needs of their children. Sadly, the parents have chosen not to take this opportunity but have instead maintained a negative and oppositional approach to the proceedings. It seems they have placed all their eggs in the basket of establishing the applicant has no foundation for bringing its application without reflecting on what their case will look like if the threshold is found to be crossed. I simply cannot identify a route map under which the children return to their parents and receive consistent good enough care which meets their needs. I appreciate this will be devastating for the parents, but I must act on the information placed before me. I have concluded both care and placement orders must be made and that no other option will meet the children's welfare requirements. I consider this to be a proportionate response to the situation that faces me. It is the only route by which I consider the children's safety can be ensured. In different circumstances an alternative may have been an option but sadly this is not the case. As the parents do not agree I must dispense with their consent as the children's welfare requires me to do so.
  58. This judgment can be shared with all involved. I will hand this judgment down as indicated on 17 April 2025 at 9.30am at a remote hearing set for the convenience of the parties. I would request the following:
  59. i) Any corrections and requests for clarification by 4pm on 15 April 2025

    ii) Any proposed redactions to enable publication by the same date. I accept the names of the children and the country of origin should be redacted.

    iii) A draft order should be available prior to the handing down.

    His Honour Judge Willans

About BAILII - FAQ - Copyright Policy - Disclaimers - Privacy Policy amended on 25/11/2010