[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) >> A Local Authority v T&F [2015] EWFC B71 (02 June 2015) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2015/B71.html Cite as: [2015] EWFC B71

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE FAMILY COURT AT NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE
IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN ACT 1989
AND IN THE MATTER OF A, B, C & D (CHILDREN)

		2nd June 2015

Introduction

1. This is the third substantive judgment I have given in these care proceedings issued by the Local Authority now just over 12 months ago, on 15^th May 2014, relating to the 5 children of M. The proceedings were issued 2 months after the youngest of the children (L), then aged four months, was admitted to hospital following the discovery of a significant increase in his head circumference.
2. L was admitted to hospital on 6^th March 2014 and discharged to foster care on 11^th March 2014 after medical investigations revealed the presence of subdural haemorrhaging and possible retinal haemorrhaging, which was then considered to be likely to have been non-accidental in nature. L's four older siblings A, B, C and D have all continued to live in the family home since that time with care arrangements I will return to shortly.
3. These care proceedings have been case managed and heard by me throughout. In the light of the 2 month delay in the issue of proceedings, I was anxious that decisions relating to the 5 children should, if at all possible, be taken within 26 weeks of issue of the proceedings. On 11^th June 2014 I timetabled the case to a fact finding hearing in September 2014 with a view to welfare decisions being taken within the 26 week track. That necessarily involved a tight timescale to the fact finding hearing.
4. In September 2014 I acceded to the joint application of the parties to adjourn the fact finding hearing, in circumstances in which the complexity of the medical evidence and L's medical history required further medical expertise and multi-disciplinary consideration of the medical evidence. The finding of fact hearing was adjourned to February 2015, the first date it could be accommodated.
5. I heard evidence and submissions in the fact finding hearing between 2^nd and 13^th February 2015. I gave judgment on 19^th February 2015. That judgment has been transcribed and forms part of the Court bundle. Apart from M and the two fathers (who are respondents to the care proceedings), the fact finding hearing also included six interveners who were potentially implicated in any non-accidental injury to L because of their involvement in his care over the relevant period.
6. The judgment I gave on 19^th February 2015 set out the conclusions I reached. I was not satisfied on the evidence that L had sustained non-accidental injuries. I was left with the conclusion that the subdural haemorrhaging remained unexplained. I made no findings in relation to retinal haemorrhaging. My judgment considered other aspects of the care arrangements for the five children and my conclusion that it was far from a single issue case on the evidence that I had heard.
7. The case therefore proceeded to the welfare stage of the proceedings. I heard evidence and submissions between 23^rd and 26^th March 2015. As a result of my leave and other listed commitments, it was not possible to give judgment until 17^th April 2015. That judgment was also transcribed and, once again, forms part of the Court bundle.
8. The Local Authority, supported by the children's guardian, was seeking placement of all five children away from the birth family. In the case of the four eldest children, the care plan provided for placement in long term foster care; in the case of L, the plan was placement for adoption. My judgment set out my conclusions and my reasons for reaching those conclusions.
9. In respect of L, I concluded that his very particular needs could only be met away from the birth family. I made a care order and approved the plan of adoption. I also made a placement order, dispensing with M's consent. In the case of the four eldest children, I concluded that M could not be ruled out as a carer for them. I did not make final orders, but adjourned for a period which I said I expected to be about two weeks, for the Local Authority to consider whether it would accept the Court's decision and revise its care plans (so that the placements of the children in their mother's care could be subject to care orders) and also for the Local Authority to provide a support plan (in circumstances in which the Local Authority had not previously identified the supports that would be made available in the event of the children's placement with their mother).
10. The judgments I gave on 19^th February 2015 and 17^th April 2015 are taken as read for the purposes of this judgment. It is necessary to explain the circumstances in which the case has come back before me and final orders are yet to be made. Before I do so I will return briefly to the care arrangements which have been in place during the proceedings.

The care arrangements

11. No orders have been required to regulate the care arrangements for all 5 children throughout the proceedings. L was accommodated with foster carers by agreement on his discharge from hospital on 11^th March 2014. Until I made final orders in respect of L on 17^th April 2015, M was having contact with L five times a week which she attended regularly and which was of generally good quality.
12. Although there is a background of Local Authority involvement in the family, which is set out in the earlier judgments, the issues relating to L and possible non-accidental injury to him precipitated his removal and the proceedings issued two months later. It was always recognised that the situation of the older children was different. Apart from L's identified special care needs since March 2014, the parties agreed that the short term care needs of the older children could be met without their removal from the family home. The parties agreed, and I approved, a care arrangement whereby the children remained living at home in the care of their mother and the children's maternal great aunt, PH, who was considered able to support and supervise M's care of the children in the short term. It was then contemplated that the fact finding hearing would take place in September 2015 followed by an early welfare hearing as soon as possible thereafter.
13. In the event, the care arrangement for the four older children did not endure through to September 2014. In July 2014 M moved out of the family home at the request of the Local Authority, leaving the four children in the sole care of PH. The circumstances in which M was asked to leave are recorded in my earlier judgments. At this time it was still contemplated that PH's caring role would last until September 2014, following which the arrangements would be revisited in the light of the findings at the fact finding hearing.
14. In September 2014 the fact finding hearing was adjourned to February 2015 with a welfare hearing listed in March 2015. This brought with it the prospect that the short term arrangement, agreed in the spring 2014 as a shared care arrangement by M and PH, now required PH to have the primary care of the children from July 2014 potentially until March 2015.
15. The Local Authority has recognised that this arrangement has required support. As well as some professional support - with visits from the social worker, health visitor involvement and visits by community support worker (Tracey Nattress) - M has continued to play a crucial role in sustaining the care arrangement, whereby the Local Authority has permitted her to spend four hours a day at the house assisting with the care of the children and running the home. The arrangement for the children was only able to be maintained over the Christmas and New Year period (when professional support was less easily available) by increasing the amount of time that M provided support to PH. After this holiday period, the time that M was permitted to be at the house once again reduced to four hours a day. In paragraph 78 of my judgment of 17^th April 2015 I recorded that the social worker, Ruth Rainsley, had acknowledged that without M's positive contribution, the placement could not have been sustained.

Developments in the proceedings

16. Having considered the competing care options for the four oldest children in the light of my findings and balanced the advantages and disadvantages of the Local Authority plan of long term foster care and resumed care of the children by M, I concluded that she should be given the opportunity to resume the care of the children with appropriate supports and monitoring. At paragraph 132 of my judgment dated 17^th April 2015, I made it clear that my preferred legal framework for this arrangement would be care orders, otherwise supervision orders would be made. In either case a support plan and written agreement was required.
17. I adjourned the case, for a period I indicated I expected to be about 2 weeks, for the Local Authority to consider the legal framework (care orders or supervision orders) and to formulate the support plan and written agreement before M resumed care of the children.
18. The Local Authority was represented by the Local Authority solicitor, Miss Lonsdale, when I delivered judgment. Aware that she wished to liaise with counsel who had been instructed by the Local Authority throughout the proceedings about my judgment and my decision, as well as the Local Authority considering the appropriate order and formulating the support plan agreement, I adjourned the hearing without specifying a timetable for those documents to be provided or a date when the case would return to Court. I nonetheless made it clear that I expected to receive a draft order reflecting a proposed timetable within days of the hearing, with a view to a further hearing to take place in around 14 days time.
19. Nothing was received or heard from the Local Authority for a week. On Friday 24^th April 2015 I received an email informing me that the Local Authority had a conference with counsel that day, following which the case management order would be provided with a draft timetable.
20. On Monday 27^th April 2015 I received a further email informing me that, following the conference on 24^th April 2015, the Local Authority was 'considering its position further and all options in conjunction with formulating a plan for the children'. The email went on to record that 'it remains difficult to indicate any timescale'.
21. Having heard nothing further by Thursday 30^th April 2015, I sent an email to the Local Authority solicitor, thanking her for keeping me informed but expressing my concern about the delay in receiving a draft order and in making progress for the children. I informed her I had then received the draft transcript and would approve it as soon as possible and then provide the Local Authority with an approved draft to expedite matters. I sent the Local Authority a copy of the approved draft the following morning.
22. I finally received the draft case management order on 1^st May 2015. It provided for the Local Authority to formulate a support plan and a written agreement, but without any timescale for them. It provided for a hearing, with no timeframe for that either. On Wednesday 6^th May 2015 after 5pm I received a further email informing me that the Local Authority was 'continuing' to formulate a support plan and written agreement. It further informed me that the Local Authority would not agree to care orders in respect of the children. The email went on to inform me that the Local Authority wished to make an application for leave to appeal and requested a hearing on 8^th May 2015 for an oral application or for me to consider the application on paper. The Local Authority requested me to 'stay any resumption of M's care of the children'.
23. After a delay of almost 3 weeks since I gave judgment, I did not consider it fair to the other parties to list a hearing at such short notice as requested by the Local Authority or to deal with the issue on paper. I responded to the email on 7^th May 2015 and gave directions to a hearing on 13^th May 2015 on notice to all parties. I directed the Local Authority to file the documents previously directed by 12^th May 2015, namely a proposed support plan, a statement setting out the Local Authority's position in relation to whether care orders or supervision orders should be made and, in addition to those documents, a skeleton argument in relation to the proposed application for permission to appeal and a stay. I directed any responses to those documents to be filed by the other parties in advance of the hearing.
24. On 12^th May 2015 the Court and the parties were served with a 40 page statement from the social worker, together with a proposed support plan, written agreement and a skeleton argument from counsel. The social work statement recorded events dating between 20^th January 2015 and 11^th May 2015, as a result of which the Local Authority argued that the risks to the children could not be managed with the children in their mother's care, whether subject to a care order or supervision order. I will address the issues raised by the Local Authority further, but it is notable that a number of the events relied upon predated the fact finding hearing and others predated the welfare hearing, as well as events which post-dated the judgment on 17^th April 2015. At the hearing on 13^th May 2015 I agreed that M should be given an opportunity to respond to that statement before I decided the extent to which, if at all, I should allow any further forensic investigation of these matters.
25. M duly provided a statement and the case came back before me for directions on 22^nd May 2015 with skeleton arguments from counsel for the Local Authority, for M, on behalf of the three children (A, B and C) who are separately represented and for the children's guardian. I decided that I should not revisit issues raised which predated the final hearing, but would hear evidence from M about her explanations in respect of a number of recent events which I considered to be potentially relevant to the decision I had reached about her resuming care of the children.
26. Although the Court could have made time available in the week following, I was persuaded that the absence of most of the advocates from the case and the children's guardian would prevent an effective hearing. Fortuitously, I was able to list the case on 1^st June 2015, the first available working day after the Whit week break, when I heard evidence from M in chief and in cross-examination. I then heard submissions and I give judgment today, 2^nd June 2015.

The children's circumstances

27. It was evident to me, having delivered judgment on 17^th April 2015, that the Local Authority (and possibly the children's guardian) wished to consider whether to seek to challenge my decision, albeit that I had not made any final orders in respect of the four eldest children. Despite this, it is common ground (reflected in an attendance note appended to the social work statement) that Ruth Rainsley visited B and C at school that day and told them that my decision was for their mother to return home in a few weeks after a plan was put in place to help her care safely for them. The social worker also told them that L would not be returning home. It is agreed that, since then, the children have expected M to return home and have been confused about the situation in which she has not (in circumstances in which she has, to date, complied with the Local Authority's request that the current care regime be maintained until final decisions are taken).
28. In my judgment of 17^th April 2015 I made it clear that the placement of the children with PH had not been expected to last anything like as long as it then had and that the strains were already very evident. It is not in dispute that PH is increasingly struggling to cope with the care of the children. On 7^th May 2015 Tracey Nattress, the community support worker, recorded the following after a home visit to PH.

'[PH] stated she is sick of being there and feels like walking out most days. She was told from [M] 3 weeks ago she would be returning to full time care of the children and [PH] will be going home. [PH] went on to say she should be in her own home now, they want to hurry up and get her home. She stated she has recently been diagnosed with COPD and other illnesses. She has inhalers and other medication to take.'

It then goes on to report the difficulty that she has in managing the children's care.

29. M's evidence at this hearing, which was not challenged, is that the children are becoming increasingly unsettled and uncooperative with the current care arrangements. She said they are also blaming her for not having returned home.
30. In March 2015 the Local Authority accepted that the care arrangements in the home with PH could not endure for much longer. The arrangement had only lasted until then with M's daily support. At the Local Authority's request, M has not altered her day to day involvement in the children's care. She has continued to be at the family home, with the children, or attending to the family's needs otherwise, for four hours each day. Apart from helping with the children's care, M also does the food and clothes shopping and cleans the house.
31. In my judgment of 17^th April 2015, I indicated the supportive role I considered MA, her sister, could play in the care arrangements for the four children. Her contact with the children had been restricted while she was in the pool of perpetrators of any non-accidental injury to L. The findings in February 2015 removed that issue from consideration. MA has a young son who remains in her care. I was surprised to hear from MA, as recently as 22^nd May 2015, that the Local Authority was not permitting her any contact with the children without supervision.
32. Similarly, it appears only on 22^nd May 2015 that supervision arrangements within the home for M were clarified - whether M could bath the children without PH being present in the same room. This was M's evidence, which was not challenged. I was surprised to hear that, aware of the pressure on the placement for months, the Local Authority has not looked to maximise and clarify the role of these family members.

The context within which the further evidence is considered

33. This is a highly unusual situation. On 17^th April 2015 I made final decisions about the care arrangements for these 5 children. In the case of L, I approved the plan of adoption and I made a final care order and placement order. In the case of A, B, C and D, I approved their return to their mother's care, albeit without a final decision about the appropriate order which would support that placement and with a need for the Local Authority to provide a support plan and written agreement, before final orders were made.
34. Events since 17^th April 2015 must be seen through this prism: that M has been coming to terms with the decision that the youngest of her five children has been removed from her care and is to be placed for adoption. Her contact with L has been reduced since the final hearing. In her evidence M said she was not sure whether her final contact had taken place. She said a note from the foster carer in L's contact diary indicated that it may have been her final visit last week and that the supervisor said that there were no more visits booked on the contact rota. It was only during the hearing that the Local Authority confirmed that M had not had her final contact. It was said that a letter would follow with further contact dates.
35. For the older four children and for M, the decision that I made that they should be reunited has remained unfulfilled after more than six weeks. Through this time M has known (or should have known) that she remains under scrutiny by the Local Authority and, indeed, by the Court.

The evidence provided by the Local Authority

36. On 22^nd May 2015 I decided I should hear evidence about events since I reached my final decision in the care proceedings, when I gave judgment on 17^th April 2015 after hearing evidence between 23^rd and 26^th March 2015. I considered that I should hear evidence which may have a bearing on my decision and the final orders that I make in respect of the four children. These related to events since I reached my decision, particularly relating to M's engagement with professionals, the question of her relationship with JH (or otherwise), as well as the children's general care and wellbeing and M's role in that. These are matters which were legitimately raised by the Local Authority in my judgment.
37. They were, however, included in a long social work statement which also included numerous earlier events, which in some cases predated the fact finding hearing and in others predated the welfare hearing. I did not consider it right to revisit those matters and hear further evidence about them, a decision which was reinforced by the fact that they were further examples of the case which had already been put by the Local Authority at the final hearing in any event.

The children's care and wellbeing

38. The Local Authority evidence includes a number of reports from school, particularly relating to C, that her presentation has been poor. A common theme has been that her long hair is straggly and not tied up. She and others of the children are also described as unkempt and dishevelled. On 21^st April 2015 the school reported that B and C were unkempt on a daily basis. On 11^th May 2015 school reported that C was dirty, wearing inappropriate clothing with long dirty nails and a dirty smell from her body. She is reported as saying she couldn't remember when she last had a shower.
39. M was cross-examined at some length about her responsibility for this. The arrangement for some months has been that M visits the house for four hours from the children's return from school, the time PH found most difficult to manage. M is not therefore at home before the children go to school. She is, however, there at the time the children get bathed and ready for bed. C is aged 9. M's evidence was that C generally plays out and comes in for a bath or shower before bed. She is of an age to be able to bath or shower herself, but M said she had understood that she could not supervise C bathing herself without PH being present, which had proved to be impractical in the home circumstances as they have been. It appears that this issue was only resolved at the hearing on 22^nd May 2015 when M was told that this supervision was not required.
40. The case papers at the final hearing recorded a number of occasions where M had herself raised a concern about the children's presentation while PH has been responsible for getting the children to school in the morning. The children's cleanliness and hygiene is undoubtedly important. M has some responsibility for this at present. She is not solely responsible, however. This has been an issue reported on occasions since she moved out of the family home. It was not a general feature of the children's care before that time.
41. In respect of B, there is a further report of concern that he had not been given his medication for his ADHD at weekends. On the evidence, B is not compliant with PH's attempts to get him to take his medication. He does so, on the evidence, without difficulty for both M and from WL, MA's husband.
42. The Local Authority statement also records B's failure to attend a CAMHS appointment on 29^th April 2015. M's response, which was not disputed, was that she could not attend that appointment as she had one of her reducing contact visits with L at the same time. M said, and it was not disputed, that she had arranged for PH to take B. PH failed to do so. M was criticised for not making a different arrangement, in circumstances in which she knows that PH is unreliable.
43. The social work statement, unhappily, does not include confirmation that B did attend a rearranged appointment on 6^th May 2015 (referred to in the CAMHS letter) and which had taken place by the date of the social worker statement on 12^th May 2014. M arranged for WL to transport B to the appointment, in circumstances in which she was attending contact with L. She left the contact visit promptly and went straight to the hospital to meet with B and WL.
44. On the evidence, the children's behaviour has become more difficult to manage in recent months. This must be seen in the context of the mixed messages they have received. They were told on 17^th April 2015 that their mother would be returning home in about two weeks, while 6 weeks on no further explanation has been provided and their mother is still not there. Moreover, PH is increasingly unable to manage their care on the Local Authority's own evidence. The children have also been told that their young brother, L, is not coming home, contrary to their wishes.

M's lack of engagement

45. The Local Authority statement records that M was not at home for 3 social work statutory visits to the home. The position was clarified at the start of the hearing, so that the Local Authority evidence is only in respect of 20^th April 2015, where there is direct evidence from the Local Authority that M was notified of the visit in advance. I accept Ruth Rainsley's evidence that she arranged that meeting with M. M said she could not remember one way or another, but agrees that she was not there when the visit took place. She undoubtedly should have been. It was 3 days after I gave my judgment. While it can be said that she should have been aware of the need to attend all appointments with the Local Authority, it was also 3 days after my decision to place L for adoption. It is no excuse, but it does provide the context in circumstances in which M has repeatedly said in her evidence at this hearing that she has found it extremely difficult to be with the current social worker, who she perceives as doing everything she can to remove all of her children from her.
46. M failed to attend a core group meeting on 1^st April 2015. Although it was before I gave judgment on 17^th April 2015, it was after the hearing concluded on 26^th March 2015. No explanation was given by M. That meeting recorded that she had failed to attend a parent's evening at the children's school.
47. M does not accept she had received notification of this parent's evening. I was not able to resolve this issue with only hearsay evidence from the Local Authority. It clearly is a concern if M was aware of a parent's evening and did not attend. Her cooperation with the school has not previously been an issue. In her evidence M said she has felt alienated (my word, not hers) from the school currently attended by the children (which has only been attended by them on her evidence since September 2014), as the children have not been in her care during that time. M previously engaged well with the children's school when the children were in her care.
48. For a period of weeks after I gave judgment on 17^th April 2015, Ruth Rainsley and the health visitor were unable to contact M on her mobile. M agrees this was the case. She says her mobile broke and she used a shop for the repair which sent her phone away for a period of four weeks. She agrees she kept the SIM card, which she says she used - she says on a limited number of occasions - on a mobile which is otherwise used by C (aged 9). On her own account, M could therefore have had a working mobile throughout this period, but chose not to.
49. Despite her lack of engagement with the social worker and health visitor during this time, M did not disengage from her involvement with the children. She has continued to be at home or with the children and PH for four hours each day. She has not therefore disengaged in this regard and her whereabouts at these times are, in a general sense, known.
50. M has continued to live at her own mother's (MGM's) home. M's evidence, which was not challenged, was that in the past professionals (and particularly the social worker) have contacted her through MGM and PH. Although M's case is that PH is not reliable, it does beg the question why these means of contact were not attempted by the social worker in the circumstances.
51. It may be the case that M distanced herself from telephone contact with the social worker, in particular in the weeks following the judgment I gave on 17^th April 2015. This is a cause for concern. It would be more so if it were not in the context of the decision I had taken in respect of L and if she had disengaged otherwise from her involvement with her children. It has to be seen against the background of previously good cooperation with this social worker and other social workers.
52. As a result of the issue with M's mobile phone, she was not aware of the date of the first session of the Freedom Programme and missed it. She has, however, attended 2 further sessions. No session took place last week due to the half term holiday and M has unfortunately missed a session today as she has attended Court to hear my judgment.

M's relationship or association with JH

53. I heard evidence about this in March 2015 and addressed it in the judgment I gave on 17^th April 2015 at paragraph 76 to 77 and paragraph 93.
54. At paragraph 93 I said this;

'I also concluded that recently M has at least formed a friendship with a man, which she has contemplated developing further. There is nothing to suggest that he is currently unsuitable as a partner but it calls in to question her understanding of her priorities. It also lends support to the argument of the Local Authority and the guardian that M is reliant on relationships with men.'

55. The Local Authority statement includes a screen shot of JH's Facebook page, which records his 'relationship status' as 'in a relationship with [M]'. She said she was aware that JH had described their relationship in this way, although she maintains they are not in a sexual relationship. She said he has been a source of support to her, particularly in relation to her loss of L. She explained the Facebook record as an attempt by JH to send a message to his ex-partner that their relationship was over.
56. On the evidence, I concluded that M is involved in an emotional relationship with JH, even if it is not a sexual relationship. Any relationship she has with a man is of potential concern, because of the unhappy history of relationships she has had to date. Nothing untoward is known of JH from the Local Authority's enquiries to date. M says he is willing to be 'police-checked'.
57. It is almost inevitable that M will be involved in relationships in the future. The extent to which she is reliant on relationships and the suitability of partners and the consequential impact on the children is the issue. I am not prepared to make findings about the nature of this relationship between M and JH on the evidence before me, beyond what I have said so far. It remains an area which will require monitoring, as it was when I gave judgment on 17^th April 2015.

My analysis and conclusions

58. From paragraph 90 to 99 and paragraphs 106 to 108 of my judgment of 17^th April 2015, I considered the placement options of a return of the four children to their mother's care and placement in foster care. From paragraphs 110 to 133 I set out my analysis and conclusions in respect of the five children.
59. I was clear that rehabilitation of the four children to their mother's care (or, more accurately, her return to the family home) on a permanent basis, carried risks with it. I also considered the Local Authority plan carried with it a risk of significant harm to the children in their separation from their mother. The Local Authority's plan provided, as it was at the final hearing, at least in the short term for the separation of the sibling group. I considered there to be overall sufficient positives to warrant M being given the opportunity to resume care of the children with appropriate supports and safeguards.
60. My request of the Local Authority to provide a support plan, a working agreement and a document explaining the position in respect of making either care of supervision orders, was in fact met by a request to revisit my conclusions, based at least in part on evidence which predated the hearing before me. I have not been asked to clarify or supplement the judgment I gave on 17^th April 2015.
61. I have considered it right to investigate further some of the matters raised by the Local Authority, acutely aware of the competing arguments in respect of the care planning for these four children and the decision I reached, on balance and with some reservations, about whether it will achieve the desired outcome.
62. I have not found the Local Authority's approach and the evidence filed by it following the decision on 17^th April 2015 to be balanced. The statement and supporting documentation is entirely negative. By way of example, the failed appointment at CAMHS was not put in the context of M's commitment to attend contact with L at the same time and the fact that a rearranged appointment was kept. The children's dishevelled appearance at school was not put in the context of the time their mother is at the house and that she is not, on the evidence, part of the morning routine.
63. I also find it striking that the statement omitted any reference to the circumstances in which events since 17^th April 2015 are to be seen - the bereavement process for the family, particularly for M, in losing L. A further important omission, in my judgment, was the absence of any consideration of the impact of the current arrangements on the children: they have been told their mother is returning home, she has not come home and they are presenting PH with more difficult behaviour, it appears in consequence. These care arrangements were always intended to be short term, initially as a shared care arrangement with M. They have become strained to near breaking point.
64. I decided on 22^nd May 2015 that the only areas I would consider further related to events which did not or could not have formed part of the evidence of the final hearing in March 2015. The Local Authority statement details events to 11^th May 2015. I have not been told of any further difficulties at any of the three separate hearings since (on 13^th May, 22^nd May and, most recently, yesterday, 1^st June 2015).
65. It has, in my judgment, been right to revisit my conclusion in the light of the more recent events. They must be seen in their proper context. They are not in my judgment of the nature or extent to alter my overall conclusions and the decision I reached in respect of A, B, C and D on 17^th April 2015. Recent events reinforce the need for the situation to move on.
66. I was told at the start of today's hearing by Mr Ainsley (representing the Local Authority for the purposes of this two day hearing) that the Local Authority received confirmation yesterday that an interim placement for the four children together is now available. My earlier judgment recorded the circumstances in which, both during the course of the final hearing and at the time I gave judgment some weeks later, the Local Authority had been unable to find a placement for four children as a result of which the plan was for the children to be separated at least in the short to medium term.
67. The judgment I gave on 17^th April 2014 made it clear that I considered that the Local Authority's plan should only be approved if there was not a family placement which could appropriately meet the children's needs. The balancing exercise I undertook concluded that there was the potential for such a placement of the four eldest children with their mother. The fact that the Local Authority is now able to tell the Court that there is a placement today for the four children together, does not in my judgment alter that balance.

Legal framework

68. Having concluded that the decision that I took on 17^th April 2015 should stand, I look to the legal framework which will be put in place to reflect the final orders in the proceedings. The Local Authority has made it clear that it would not support the placement of the children at home subject to care orders. M opposes care orders being made in circumstances in which the Local Authority is evidently strongly opposed to this plan. I have considered the decision of the Court Of Appeal in Re W (Care Proceedings: Functions of Court and Local Authority) [2013] EWCA Civ 1227 in the light of the recent decision in Court of Protection in Re MN (An Adult) [2015] EWCA Civ 411. It is clear the Court cannot dictate a care plan to the Local Authority. Having invited the Local Authority to consider whether care orders would be appropriate, that option is not open to me in circumstances in which it is indicated it would not revise its care plans in respect of these children.
69. I will, shortly, make supervision orders in respect of A, B, C and D. I should however consider the support plan and the draft agreement provided in advance of this hearing.

The support plan

70. This provides for ongoing involvement from the community support team to undertake a nurturing Programme and provide support for the children. M is keen to do this work and said she would welcome any support Tracey Nattress can provide for her, as well as the children. She said Tracey Nattress is someone she can talk to.
71. The support plan provides for the Strengthening Families Programme which is geared to parents and young people aged 10 to 14. This appears a relevant and appropriate resource.
72. The Freedom Programme is very well known and successful. Given M's history of poor relationship choices, I see this as an important part of assisting her to make better informed choices in the future.
73. Therapeutic support is proposed for the children from Full Circle, in addition to the resources available to A, B and C at school. The Full Circle work will take over from the weekly sessions which are currently provided to the children by Tracey Nattress. The plan proposes support for M to access counselling. It would, in my judgment, be of considerable benefit to her to obtain such support in coming to terms with the proceedings over the last year, grieving for the loss of L and resuming the care of four children after the traumatic events the family have experienced in the last year.
74. The support plan provides for other resources - social work, family worker involvement and school clubs which can provide support and monitoring. The Child Safety Course which is proposed may be of some benefit.
75. I am pleased that a revised written agreement has been provided from the original draft proposed by the Local Authority (which I considered was unrealistic in its expectations of M who is, in accordance with my decision, to be a single carer of four children). No representations have been made by the parties in relation to that draft working agreement. I agree now that in its current form, the agreement is an appropriate document.
76. That therefore completes the judgment that I propose to give other than to direct a transcript of judgment.
End of judgment

We hereby certify that this judgment has been approved by Her Honour Judge Hudson.

Compril Limited