England and Wales High Court (Family Division) Decisions

IN THE CENTRAL FAMILY COURT

		First Avenue House 42-49 High Holborn, WC1
		12 December 2017

DISTRICT JUDGE MULKIS:

1. I am concerned with Child A, who was born on [a date in] 2017 and is now just under 6 months old. Child A is the mother's third child and the father's fourth child. The mother has a daughter Child C living with her mother in Romania and her son, Child B, who was fathered by the father, was made subject to care and placement orders. Father has a child in Norfolk Child D and, in addition, he is the father of Child B. Neither parent cares for any of these children.
2. The Local Authority's allocated social worker is JH and the CAFCASS guardian for Child A is LW. This is the local authority's application for a care order in relation to Child A issued on 22 June 2017. The local authority's plan is that Child A be placed for adoption. In summary, the local authority alleges that neither parent is capable of caring for Child A without exposing him to a realistic risk of suffering significant harm.
3. Mother is from Romania where she has Child C living with her mother. She is alleged to engage in prostitution, use illicit drugs, participate in criminal activities, and is in a relationship with the father which is characterised by domestic violence, a lack of stable housing, and at times homeless. It is said that she failed to make preparations for Child A's birth and refused to engage in antenatal care for Child A, missing all eight appointments offered to her by the UCLH midwife team. It is alleged that she and the father deliberately sought to avoid engagement with professionals during the pregnancy.
4. The father is from Egypt. It is alleged that he is aggressive and violent, misuses illicit drugs, and engages in criminal activities. He is currently detained at HMP Thameside having been charged with two counts of burglary and two counts of possession of class A drugs. He has pleaded guilty to one count of burglary and is due to reappear in the Crown Court in January 2018.
5. On [a date in] 2016, The Child A's older brother, Child B, was born. The mother abandoned him in hospital as the hospital would not allow the father to see him due to his aggressive behaviour. Neither parent engaged in the subsequent care proceedings and he was placed for adoption.
6. Threshold is set out in the final threshold document prepared by the local authority dated 8 November 2017. The parents dispute some aspects of the final threshold document but accept that threshold is crossed. The parents oppose the applications and seek the return of Child A to the care of the mother and failing that, seek placement of Child A with the father's aunt, Mrs X, in Egypt. The guardian's final analysis report dated 1 December 2017 is supportive of the position of the local authority for care orders and placement for Child A.
7. For the purpose of this hearing, I have read the extensive final hearing bundles. I have heard oral evidence from: (a) JH the allocated social worker; (b) MH from the local authority's Family Finding team; (c) the mother; (d) the father; and (e) LW who is Child A's guardian.
8. I turn to the legal framework. The burden lies on the local authority to prove the allegations which it makes. The appropriate standard of proof is the civil standard of the simple balance of probabilities. I have reminded myself of Re B (Children) [2008] UKHL 35 and particularly the speech of Baroness Hale. The threshold criteria, as I have stated already, are not completely agreed but the parents accept that threshold is passed. I therefore find that the threshold criteria set out at s.31 of the Children Act 1989 are met.
9. I turn to welfare. The next issue that I have to decide in relation to Child A's future is whether I should approve the local authority's care plan for him to be placed for adoption or whether there is any realistic route by which he may safely be placed in the care of his mother or anyone else. In determining this issue, I bear firmly in mind that Child A's welfare is my paramount concern. I have reminded myself of the provisions of the welfare checklist which is set out at s.1(3) of the Children Act and also what is known as the 'no delay' principle set out at s.1(2). I approach the local authority's applications on the basis that the best place for any child is within his family of origin unless there are clear welfare grounds to prefer an alternative. My task is to consider whether Child A can be cared for by a member of his family to a satisfactory standard within an appropriate timescale and not whether he might be better off being adopted.
10. In analysing the local authority's plan for Child A's and the placement order application, I am obliged to consider whether it would accord with his welfare throughout his life to be made the subject of a placement order. In that exercise, I am guided by the welfare checklist at s.1(4) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002; s.1(4)(c) the likely effect upon the child of having ceased to be a member of his natural birth family; s.1(4)(e) the harm he has suffered and is at risk of suffering; and s.(4)(f) the relationship which he has with relatives and the capacity of relatives to provide him with a secure environment in which he can develop and otherwise to meet his needs.
11. If I conclude that placement order accords with Child A's welfare, I will then have to determine whether his welfare requires me to dispense with the consent of his parents to the making of such an order. In addressing that issue, I have reminded myself of the guidance set out in Re P (Placement Orders: Parental Consent) [2008] EWCA Civ 535.
12. I must be satisfied that any orders I make are a lawful, necessary, proportionate and reasonable response to Child A's sad predicament. The granting of a care order, let alone endorsing a plan for adoption, would represent a drastic curtailment of the rights of the parents and Child A under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms which can only be justified by pressing concerns for the welfare of the children. However, in construing both the Convention and also domestic law, I now have the assistance of the Supreme Court in Re B (A Child) [2013] UKSC 33, followed by the decisions of the Court of Appeal, particularly in Re B-S [2013] EWCA Civ 1146, but also Re P (A Child) [2013] EWCA Civ 963 and Re G (A Child) [2013] EWCA Civ 965. All of those cases re-emphasise that a placement for adoption is a very extreme thing and a last resort to be approved only when nothing else will do. Both domestic and Convention law do require a high degree of justification before adoption can be endorsed as necessary (the term in the Convention) or required by the Adoption and Children Act.
13. I turn to consider the evidence and my impression of the witnesses. I start with MH from the local authority's family finding team. He provided a statement dated 9 November 2017. In that statement, he said that, at present, there were no suitable families for Child A inhouse and investigations would need to be made to see if there were any suitable families in the north London consortium although, at that time, he understood there were not any. He proposed to refer to the Adoption Match, which was previously known as the Adoption Register, for a full list of potential adopters. A search that was carried out on 7 November 2017 revealed 25 possible matches and a similar search with adoption link had revealed two possible families. In his statement, he said that the local authority sought to place children for adoption within four months and would make every effort to place Child A within that timescale but accepted that in order to match him suitably with prospective adopters, this might take a little longer than that.
14. In his oral evidence, he explained that a prospective family for Child A had, in fact, been identified. The prospective adoptive parents were both aged about 40 and were both professionals, both being doctors. Their heritage was mixed, part Egyptian and Muslims, and they were open to possible indirect contact with siblings. He said, however, that the search for adoptive parents may have to extend beyond London and outside of Child A's ethnicity, but that placing Child A for adoption had good prospects due to his very young age. I found him to be a straightforward, honest, and clear witness.
15. The next witness was JH, the allocated social worker. In her first written statement dated 21 June 2017, she set out the history of the parents and their background. She explained that her investigations determined that the father had started to misuse drugs in or about 2008 having come to the UK in 2002, and that his drug use had continued. He was recorded as using cocaine, heroin, crack cocaine, cannabis, steroids, and diazepam. She noted that there was a reported history of domestic violence between the father and his previous partner, and that the father had a criminal history. In relation to the mother, she noted that she had moved to the United Kingdom in or about January 2015 and very shortly after that was arrested for loitering with the purpose of prostitution. There have been many further incidents of domestic violence and violence by the father.
16. On [a date in] 2016, Child B had been born and as I have already noted, abandoned by his parents in hospital. Neither parents engaged in the subsequent care proceedings or, for that matter, saw him after he had been abandoned in hospital and he was placed for adoption.
17. She noted there had been further incidents recorded of crimes committed by the parents, including booking into a hotel and stealing from the safe, and that the mother had been diagnosed with syphilis at UCLH. She also recorded that the mother had failed to engage with UCLH when she had been pregnant with Child A, missing all eight antenatal appointments offered to her.
18. In her second witness statement dated 9 November 2017, JH noted then that the mother was homeless and was staying with a friend. She was pregnant again. The father had been arrested on 28 September 2017 and on 19 October 2017, had pleaded guilty to one charge of burglary and not guilty to another. She noted that the parents had not had any contact at that time with Child B since 21 August 2017 but contact was being arranged to take place on 8 November 2017. She said the parents had not shown any development in their parenting skills and had little commitment to meeting the concerns expressed by the local authority. They had also not made sufficient if any changes to their lifestyles and, if anything, the local authority's concerns has heightened.
19. She noted that on 13 September 2017, the parents were evicted from a council property that had been given to the mother. The reason for this was that they had caused significant damage to the property. They were formally evicted on 7 September 2017 but had forced entry and were evicted again on 13 September 2017. She reported that on 28 September 2017, the father had been arrested and remanded in custody for the offences of burglary and possession of class A drugs. She had visited the father in prison on 18 October 2017 and he had spoken negatively of the mother saying they had been smoking drugs together and that she had been sex working. In the statement, JH confirmed that the agency decision-maker at the local authority had endorsed the care plan of adoption for Child A.
20. JH also completed a parenting assessment which was dated 14 September 2017. Due to the lack of engagement by the parents, completing this assessment was difficult. They only attended two of the nine appointments offered despite consistent and repeated attempts made by JH to meet with them. She was unable to assess them on occasions when they failed to attend contact sessions with Child A. As well as detailing thoroughly the personal histories of both parents, JH noted in her observations the way in which the father dominated their relationship and whereas the mother spoke very positively about the father, he did not speak positively about her.
21. JH completed a detailed analysis of both protective and risk factors, the latter sadly significantly outweighing the former. She concluded saying as follows:

"There is nothing which I have assessed which makes me form the view that either of these parents are able to provide the parenting that Child A or any child of his age requires because of their own difficulties and lack of any insight into the concerns thus preventing any prognosis for positive change...

The mother and father have shown no commitment to addressing the significant concerns raised since the beginning of the social work involvement or of having any insight into how Child A's needs could be met and what they would need to do to be able to parent him safely."

She also concluded that the risks posed to Child A if placed in his parents' care would be very high indeed, of his being exposed to neglect, physical and emotional harm, and that neither should therefore care for him.

22. In giving oral evidence, JH confirmed that she has been Child A's allocated social worker since March 2017. Following his birth, she said that the parents attended regularly but did not stay for very long when they did attend and that their attendances rather tailed off. She detailed the very different and conflicting explanations given by the parents for the extensive damage found at an unannounced inspection by a housing officer at the accommodation the local authority had provided to the mother. These explanations included: looking for rats; searching for the mother's engagement ring; and others entering the property and causing the damage.
23. She confirmed that she personally had been subjected to the father's aggressive behaviour. She spoke of how the father spoke negatively about the mother and dominated meetings, and how the mother deferred to him and was dominated by him. She was concerned that the mother, on occasions, presented with injuries which she thought may have been caused by domestic violence by the father and for which the mother did not give convincing explanations. An example was a bruise on her forehead which she said had been caused by using hair straighteners which, as JH pointed out, were more likely to have caused a burn than a bruise.
24. Addressing the mother's drug use, she confirmed that she had admitted to having been using crack cocaine recently but denied having used heroin. However, both hair strand tests and oral swab tests had shown positive test results for heroin use and the results of those tests had not been challenged. In addition, she told me that the mother's presentation, being vacant, and difficult to connect to, gave the impression that she was at these times possibly under the influence of drugs.
25. She did not feel that the mother had made any real changes. Her accommodation was not suitable for a child. She had been missing contact. Concerns about her health remained. There had been some improvement in engagement, but it was still very limited and she admitted that she was using drugs in November 2017.
26. She considered that the mother lacks insight and does not feel that the mother has been able to display any insight into the concerns of the local authority. She said that the mother did not seem to understand the impact of syphilis and showed no acknowledgment of the potential effects of smoking cigarettes or taking drugs, or the importance of attending antenatal appointments and scans.
27. Her experience was that the father had not demonstrated any insight into the local authority's concerns. She told me that when she had met him on 21 November 2017, he had accepted responsibility for some of the issues but had no understanding, seemingly, of the mother's behaviour and the impact of their behaviour on a child both before and after birth.
28. In cross-examination, JH gave her evidence consistently with her evidence in her statements and her oral evidence in chief. She accepted that the father now accepts some responsibility for some of his actions but still fails to see how they have impacted on Child A. She reiterated that the mother refuses to acknowledge the problems that exist, and which afflict and affect her. In consequence, she has not engaged with services offered to help her and is therefore unlikely to do so in the future.
29. When asked about the parents' failure to attend contact sessions with Child A she explained that contact had originally been arranged to take place three times a week but says the parents did not attend often and when they did, they were frequently late. Contact was then reduced to once a fortnight after the father had been remanded in custody. From that time, the mother had only attended to see Child A on one occasion. She confirmed that her conclusion in her parenting assessments of both parents was that nothing has changed and that they cannot safely care for Child A. I found JH to have been an honest and straightforward witness who was fair in her assessments and observations of the parents, and in her recommendations to the court.
30. I turn to the evidence of the father. On the second day of this final hearing, he produced a statement which he had handwritten. In this statement, he sought to blame the social worker for the situation that he and the mother were in but partly acknowledged some blame himself. He however almost completely failed to address any of the relevant events of concern about his and the mother's ability to care for Child A without exposing to a real risk of suffering significant harm.
31. In his oral evidence, the father said that he was weaning himself off drugs in prison, he accepted that he had badly treated the mother, and that he wanted to return to live in Egypt. He denied that the mother is suffering from syphilis. He failed to give a satisfactory explanation as to why he had not engaged in proceeding and fought to keep Child B and said he had failed to come to court hearings concerning Child A and to have attended contact with him due to his drug use. The father accused JH of having sought to trick him and the mother, and that she had sought to remove Child A from their care so that she could sell him.
32. When asked about the damage to the accommodation provided by the local authority to the mother which had led to their eviction, he blamed this damage on friends of his who had wanted to smoke drugs with him and who had then, he said, thrown the drugs into the toilet when the police had turned up. He said they had subsequently returned and dismantled the toilet to try and retrieve the drugs. He told me the damage had nothing to do with rats. He confirmed that the mother is now living with a friend of his, Mr Y, who has a history of domestic violence, a drug problem, and he told me that this was not a good place for the mother to be living in.
33. The father was not an impressive witness. In his oral evidence, he ranted and he failed to consider issues from the perspective of others. His evidence was, I found, in some respects delusional, demonstrated by his belief that the social worker was seeking to sell Child A as well as his denial that the mother suffers from syphilis. He showed no insight into the multitude of very real and significant problems that both he and the mother face and how these could be addressed to give any prospect of either of them caring for Child A.
34. The mother failed to serve her witness statement by the date ordered and also failed to attend the first day of this final hearing arriving at court shortly after I had finally adjourned the first day's hearing at 15.55 hours, by which time she was very nearly six and a half hours late as she had been due to arrive at court to meet her counsel at 9.00 a.m. I was later told she arrived shortly after 4.00 p.m.
35. On the second day she again arrived late at about 11.30 a.m. Her statement dated 4 December was handed to me that morning. In this statement she accepted that she had frequently failed to attend planned contact sessions with Child A. She did not accept the unchallenged results of her drug tests and said the only drug she had taken was crack cocaine which she said she had only taken for about one and a half months. She denied taking heroin and said she was no longer taking drugs. She denied the father had been violent towards her and said that she was now intending to seek treatment for her syphilis. She accepted that the parental assessment was negative but suggested that she had changed and would make changes although she gave no details of any changes made or the ones that she would make. She said she wished to care for Child A but gave no evidence as to how she would do so or what steps, if any, she was planning to make to meet and prevent the risks identified by the local authority. Her statement, as with the father's evidence, was devoid of any concerns for The Child A's wellbeing, his needs, and how they could be met.
36. In her oral evidence, she sought, in her words, to be given a final chance to be with Child A. She asked for this to be supervised. She did not suggest that she could look after him independently. She accepted that she had in these proceedings failed to attend many contact sessions with Child A, that she had failed to attend the planned parenting assessment sessions, had failed to meet the guardian, that she had prioritised the father over Child A, and that her current housing was far from ideal and not suitable for a young child as she living with a friend of the father who is a drug user. Despite the various drug test results which have shown that she has tested positive for both cocaine and heroin throughout these proceedings and which have never been challenged, the mother denied taking drugs save for crack cocaine for a period of one and a half to two months which came to an end, she told me, about three to four weeks ago.
37. When asked about the extensive damage caused to the accommodation provided to her by the local authority, which led to her being evicted, she said that the reason she had previously given, explaining the damage as having been due to looking for rats, a leak, and a lost engagement ring, had not been true and that she only recently learned the truth from the father. Plainly, she accepted she had been lying and had been untruthful.
38. Her responses to questions about her syphilis was very worrying. She accepted that she had failed to complete a course of treatment whilst pregnant with Child A. Her justification was that she said that she knew her own body and so knew that she did not have syphilis, which I find plainly to be wrong and a matter of significant concern in relation to how she would approach the health of any child in her care.
39. She accepted that the father has been rude to her, and has humiliated her, and she attributed this to his paranoia due to his drug use. The mother also accepted that she had failed to attend antenatal appointments she had been pregnant with Child A which she sought to justify on the basis that in Romania, it is only necessary to see a doctor. She accepted that she and the father had let down Child A by failing to register his birth.
40. Her attention was drawn to the similar concerns that had been set out in the final threshold document concerning Child B and she acknowledged that after Child B had been removed from her care, or should I say she had abandoned Child B, it had been important that she should not make the same mistakes, but she had done so. She again said that she should be given a second chance without seemingly appreciating that she has already been given a second chance and that it is Child A's welfare and needs that need to be considered and not hers.
41. The final witness who gave evidence was Child A's guardian, LW. In her final analysis dated 1 December 2017, LW detailed significant concerns about the parents including: domestic violence between them; domestic violence between the father and his former partner as well as violence between the father and members of his family; the parents' abandonment of Child B; police involvement; criminality on both their parts, largely involving the father, but on occasions also with both parents acting together, as well as the mother having been arrested for loitering with the purpose of prostitution; drug use and the inability of parents to care for children whilst under the influence of drugs; the neglect of Child A as an unborn child due to the mother's syphilis which she failed to treat; her lack of engagement with antenatal care; and the parents' homelessness.
42. LW had difficulties in getting the mother to meet with her and only, in fact, managed to do so at a court hearing on 14 November 2017. They arranged then to meet the following day but the mother failed to attend the appointment. She had similar difficulties in meeting with the father, ultimately meeting with him in prison on 29 November 2017.
43. LW felt that the mother is controlled by the father and that the mother showed no willingness to work with professionals, failed to understand their concerns, and did not present as having the expected emotional connection with Child A. She supported the recommendations of the local authority that care and placement orders should be made for Child A.
44. LW was present in court throughout this final hearing and heard both parents give evidence and saw their demeanour and behaviour in court. She has in the course of this final hearing witnessed the father's frequent interruptions, outbursts, and accusations as well as the threats that he made to others in court, in particular to the social worker. She was very concerned, as she told me in oral evidence, and she said that she would expect at a hearing of this nature that a parent would wish to show their best side but that the father's presentation in court gave her real concerns as to how he might behave when behind closed doors.
45. She told me that she thought that neither parent had any consideration or insight into the concerns raised repeatedly by professionals and that neither seemed to give any thought as to how their behaviours had impacted on Child A and also that neither had any sadness for what has happened to Child A. LW, in short, had no faith in the ability of either parent to make changes and she maintained the conclusions and recommendations which she had set out in her final analysis.
46. I turn to my findings. There have been a multitude of serious concerns about the ability of the parents to safely care for a child since before Child B was born which they did not address then and have not done since despite the birth of both children. The parents have failed to demonstrate any real intention to engage in the future with professionals, to seek advice and help, and act on it. The parents' relationship is one in which there is domestic violence between them. The father controls and dominates the mother and is abusive to her. The parents have and given that there is no evidence of change are likely to continue to become embroiled in violent and aggressive confrontations with others. The parents' relationship has been one in which they have failed to secure stable accommodation and their destructive behaviour has led to them being evicted and becoming homeless. On the balance of probabilities, I find this is likely to continue. Neither parent currently has or is likely to have suitable accommodation in which they can safely rear and look after a child.
47. Both parents are drug users. The father has recently sought to withdraw from drugs whilst in the controlled environment of a prison, but given his longstanding and extensive use of drugs, combined with his lifestyle choices, I sadly find that, on the balance of probabilities, on his eventual release from prison, he will relapse back into drug use. The mother is also a consistent drug user of both cocaine, cannabis, and heroin as evidenced by numerous drug tests. I find her evidence that she has not used drugs, save for a recent one and a half to two-month period of crack cocaine use, to be deliberately untruthful. Her refusal to be honest about her drug use means that she will not seek to address it and has no intention of doing so.
48. The mother has syphilis which she knowingly failed to treat whilst pregnant with Child A even though she was aware of the dangers of transmitting this disease to an unborn child. She is now again pregnant but is still failing to commence treatment thereby exposing the child that she is currently carrying to a risk of suffering significant ill-health and damage. Her failure to obtain and carry through with the treatment of herself for syphilis indicates, at best, a complete recklessness of her behaviour and attitude to the welfare of her unborn children and, at worst, a complete contempt and lack of care for them.
49. The parents' abandonment of Child B in hospital demonstrated a callous lack of concern for him. They have, in addition, demonstrated a callous lack of concern for Child A due to their failures to attend numerous contact sessions with him. The parents' failures to engage properly in these proceedings by, amongst other matters, failing to attend parenting assessment meetings, failing to meet with The Child A's guardian, failing to attend court hearings, and failure to comply with orders to have hair strand tests has yet further demonstrated their lack of any real interest let alone commitment to Child A. Neither parent has demonstrated any real or genuine interest in Child A's physical or emotional needs. They do not seek in any way to give any consideration to his needs. Rather, they are absorbed in their own lives and prioritise their relationship over Child A. This is perhaps poignantly demonstrated by the fact that since the father has been incarcerated, the mother has visited him three times per week, whereas throughout this period she has only been to see Child A once.
50. Neither parent currently is or foreseeably will be able to meet The Child A's physical and emotional needs. I find that if placed in the care of either or both of his parents that, on the balance of probabilities, Child A will suffer significant harm.
51. The Child's needs; Child A needs a secure, stable, and permanent placement and he needs it urgently. As the days and weeks go by, he is putting down roots and building attachments with his current carers, relationships which inevitably must be severed. He needs the opportunity of developing secure attachments to a permanent loving family and without that opportunity, he is unlikely to be able to function as an emotionally secure child and later adolescent or adult. He will need a carer or carers who are particularly attuned and sensitive to his needs, who can give him a great deal of individual attention. His needs are long-term, for example, adolescence is likely to prove challenging as he comes to understand what happened to him as a baby.
52. I consider the parents' capacity to meet Child A's needs. Sadly, for the reasons that I have already given, I have come to the conclusion that neither of Child A's parents, together or apart, can safely look after Child A without exposing him to a risk of suffering significant harm. I also note that no real plan has been advanced by or on behalf of the parents as to how they would be able, throughout Child A's minority as a baby, toddler, infant, and teenager with all his changing demands, to safely parent Child A and keep him safe from harm.
53. I turn to the balancing exercise in respect of the alternative options open to the court. I refer to the decision in the case of Re B-S to which I have already made reference that the court must consider the positives and negatives of each possible outcome before weighing each against the other in an overall balancing exercise. Sadly, placement with family members, other than the parents, has not proved possible. The possibility of placement of Child A with the father's aunt in Egypt, Mrs X, was explored at an earlier stage of these proceedings but discounted as not being a realistic and safe option for Child A.
54. It is agreed by all parties in these proceedings that the future options are stark. They consist of the return of Child A to the care of his parents or care and placement orders being made for him. No party suggests that long-term fostering is a realistic option which will meet Child A's welfare needs throughout his life.
55. I have already found that if returned to the care of his parents, there is no realistic way in which Child A can be kept safe from significant harm. The local authority asks that I approve its care plan which includes a proposal for placement for adoption of Child A. In favour of this proposal, I find that adoption will provide a safe and stable long-term future for him. Against that, he will of course, if adopted, lose direct contact with his parents and other family members. I accept that there is a risk that if placed for adoption the placement may break down, but I consider those risks to be small. I accept the evidence of MH from the family finding team of the Local Authority's that there are good prospects of Child A's successfully being placed for adoption.
56. In considering these options, I also take into account the provisions of the welfare checklists that I have referred to already. Child A is too young to express his own wishes although it would be reasonable to assume that he would naturally wish to remain with his parents. This would only be on the basis that he is attached to them and safe in their care. Regretfully, this is not the case. It is fair to consider that he wishes to be part of a loving family where he will be protected from harm and have his needs met.
57. His physical, emotional and educational needs must be met. Sadly, his parents are not and will not in the foreseeable future, and in Child A's timescales, be able to meet his needs and prevent him from suffering harm. I find that Child A will, in all likelihood, be able to form good and strong bonds with any prospective adoptive parents.
58. I have therefore come to the conclusion that Child A's welfare needs will not be met if he is returned to the care of his parents. I must also consider Child A's long-term needs throughout his life and having done so, conclude that these needs will be best met if he is placed for adoption.
59. Regretfully, I have come to the conclusion that this is the only realistic option and way in which his critical welfare needs can be properly met and satisfied. I am satisfied that adoption offers the best way of meeting Child A's pressing needs for permanence and security, and that the granting of a placement order will promote his welfare throughout his life. I accept the evidence of the local authority and the guardian that this is genuinely a case where nothing else will do for Child A.
60. The parents have not consented to the local authority's request and plan that Child A be placed for adoption. I can only make an order that Child A be placed for adoption either with the consent of the parents or if I dispense with parental consent. Section 52(1) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 provides that:

"(1) The court cannot dispense with the consent of any parent or guardian of a child to the child being placed for adoption or to the making of an adoption order in respect of the child unless the court is satisfied that—

(a) the parent or guardian cannot be found or is incapable of giving consent, or

(b) the welfare of the child requires the consent to be dispensed with."

61. In the case of Re P (Placement Orders: Parental Consent) [2008] EWCA Civ 535, the Court of Appeal considered the proper test for dispensing with the parental agreement under s.52(1)(b). It held that 'welfare' means the welfare throughout the child's life, and that 'required' means what is demanded rather than what is merely optional, reasonable, or desirable.
62. For the reasons that I have already given, I am satisfied that adoption is in the best interests of Child A as nothing else will do. Adoption will provide him with the welfare that he will need throughout his life and that his welfare requires that the requirement for the consent of the parents for Child A to be placed for adoption be dispensed with. I accept that the effect of Child A being adopted will mean that this will lead to him losing ties with his parents but hope that he may, if possible, in the future be able to have some contact with his siblings.
63. The regularity of contact between the parents and Child A will be as set out in the local authority's care plan, that is once a fortnight for the mother for the next two months, and then reduced to once monthly until an adoptive family has been identified. There will then be a final moving on contact. Post-adoption contact will be indirect twice a year letterbox contact. Both parents will be able to provide information for Child A for his lifetime story box.
64. I fully appreciate that this decision will be disappointing and distressing for both parents and regret the upset that I know this decision will cause them. I do, however, hope that in time they will appreciate perhaps, but they have not done so yet, that the decision that I have made is not one that in ideal circumstances I would have wished to have made, but it is one that, for all the reasons I have given, I have been driven to conclude is the only viable option for Child A. I therefore approve the final care plan of the local authority for Child A and its application that he be placed for adoption. I therefore make both care and placement orders.
65. I am obliged to consider the human rights of Child A and in arriving at my decision, I accept that Article 8 of the Human Rights Act is engaged and that Child A has the right to a family life with is parents. However, I consider that my decision that he should be placed for adoption is proportionate in accordance with the need for his welfare interests to be properly cared for.
66. Orders; subject to any further submissions, I make the following orders:

(a) I record that I find the threshold criteria at s.31 of the Children Act is met and that I approve the local authority's care plan;

(b) I make a care order;

(c) I record that I dispense with the consent of the parents;

(d) I make a placement order;

(e) I direct that a transcript of this judgment be prepared at the expense of the Local Authority. It will be anonymised by the transcribers and forwarded to the parties' legal representatives for comment before it should be placed on BAILII;

(f) I give leave for any relevant documentation to be disclosed to prospective adopters;

(g) I reserve any further applications in relation to Child A to myself unless that is geographically inconvenient for prospective adopters; and

(h) I make all the usual orders in relation to costs.

67. Finally, I would like to thank the local authority's social work team for all of their work in this case and, in particular, JH for all the thorough and dedicated work that she has carried out for The Child. I would also like to thank The Child's guardian, LW, for her assistance. I am also immensely grateful to all of the advocates for the helpful, constructive, thoughtful and compassionate way in which this case was dealt with by them at this difficult final hearing.

THE DISTRICT JUDGE: That concludes my judgment unless there are any other matters.

MS GEDDES: Sir, there was one matter that the-- on behalf of the local authority I asked you to specifically find or-- or not find. I-- I recall you made reference to the mother's drug use and you found that she had used drugs and you mentioned, I think, cannabis and cocaine. I didn't hear a mention of heroin.

THE DISTRICT JUDGE: Sorry, I correct that paragraph and ask that the transcribers, in that paragraph, add the word 'heroin' as well.

MS GEDDES: Thank you. Also, the father didn't accept the threshold document of 8 November. It was with respect to - I don't have the paragraph number in front of me - with respect to harm, potential harm caused to Child A through mother not attending antenatal appointments and therefore I asked for your finding as to whether or not you accepted that Child A had been harmed in utero by not being-- by mother not attending antenatal.

THE DISTRICT JUDGE: I've not made a specific finding on that issue because I've not been provided with any evidence that, on the balance of probabilities, demonstrates that he did suffer actual harm as a consequence of non-attendance by his mother at those appointments.

MS GEDDES: I'm grateful. Thank you. Also, during the course of the proceedings, the court and the advocates heard the father urging the mother to go to Romania with her unborn baby and I asked the court to make a note of that. I didn't hear mention of that and whether you would like to record in your judgment that you-- you observed and heard those comments.

THE DISTRICT JUDGE: I confirm that during the course of this final hearing that, on more than one occasion, the father said that the mother should go with her unborn baby to Romania and that he had also said that she had planned to go to Romania when pregnant with Child A but alleged that they had been persuaded that she should stay by JH. He was consistent in saying that they had been tricked and was encouraging her, even when he was not giving evidence and was interrupting the course of proceedings, to encourage her, in effect, to abscond now.

MS GEDDES: I'm very grateful.