This judgment was delivered in private. The judge has given leave for this version of the judgment to be published on condition that (irrespective of what is contained in the judgment) in any published version of the judgment the anonymity of the children and their family members must be strictly preserved. All persons, including representatives of the media, must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so will be a contempt of court.

Case No: BS16C00668
IN THE FAMILY COURT AT BRISTOL
Bristol Civil and Family Justice Centre

27th February 2017

Before:
HIS HONOUR JUDGE WILDBLOOD QC

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

	Between:		
	Bath and North East Somerset Council	Applicant	
	-and-		
	The mother	First Respondent 	
	-and-		
	F1	Second Respondent	
	-and-		
	F3	Third Respondent	
	-and-		
	The father	Fourth Respondent	
	-and-		
	A, B, C and D (children) by their guardian.	Fifth to eighth Respondents	
	-and-		
	PA	Intervener	

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

Carrie Sykes for the Local Authority.
Delia Thornton for the mother. 
Linsey Knowles for ‘the father’ (4th Resp.)
Diane Martin for the children (except for A).
Naomi Owen for A.

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

JUDGMENT
HHJ Wildblood QC:
1.	These public law proceedings, which were issued ten months ago, concern four children, each of whom is currently in the interim care of the Local Authority. The children have the same mother (‘M’) but each of them has a different father. Only the father of the youngest child (the fourth Respondent) plays any direct part in these proceedings and, therefore, I refer to him as ‘the father’ even though he is not the father of the other children. Also involved in these proceedings is the father's sister to whom I refer as PA (since she is the paternal aunt of the youngest child). I have anonymized this judgment deliberately. It shows the truly pitiful plight of a mother caught up in drug addiction.
2.	I think that the easiest way to describe the family involved is in a table such as this:
Child (sex)	Age	Mother	Father (participated in case?).	Where are the children living?	Orders sought by L.A. (guardian agrees).	Resps’ positions	
A (girl)	Early teens.	M	2nd Resp. (No).
He usually lives in the south-east but is now in drugs rehabilitation in the Midlands.	Foster care on her own since March 2016. She moved to her current placement in January 2017; it is not in her home town.	Care with the intention of long-term fostering.	A opposes long-term care. 
M does not agree to a care order. She accepts that, if A is in care, she would contact her by phone twice a week and attend school events and that direct contact should be once a month to begin with.
2nd Resp. (A’s father) supports L.A.	
B (girl)	9	M	Unknown (M has not given details).	Foster care with C since 5th May 2016.	Care and placement (on basis that B and C remain together and that a twin-track search for foster carers will also be carried out, an adoptive placement to be sought for 6 months only).	M agrees to care orders but not to placement orders.	
C (boy)	6	M	3rd Resp. (No). He lives somewhere in the south-east but is not contactable.	Foster care with B since 5th May 2016.	Care and placement.	M agrees to care orders but not to placement orders.	
D (boy)	3	M	4th Resp. (Yes) - ‘the father’. Sentenced to 6 years and four months on 5.12.2016 for drugs related offences. Was living in this region, separately from M.	Foster care on his own since 16th November 2016.	Care and placement (to be placed separately from B and C). 	M accepts that she cannot care for D and proposes that D should live with PA, the father’s sister - either under a care order or a section 8 order. The father supports his sister, PA.	

3.	The background can be stated quite briefly. The mother was herself in Local Authority care for part of her childhood, having been beyond the control of her parents. She had her first child (a daughter who is now aged 20 and is not involved in these proceedings) at the age of 17; that daughter has lived with the mother’s parents since she was aged three and, by all accounts, is doing well. 
4.	The mother became addicted to Class A drugs since at least the age of 20 (which is when her first daughter went to live with her parents) and by the age of 22 had spent 18 months in attempted residential drugs rehabilitation. A was born when the mother was aged 25. B was born with serious drug withdrawal symptoms when the mother was 29. The Local Authority was involved at the time and in a case conference recorded that the mother’s care of the children appeared to be good despite the concerns about her use of drink and drugs. C was born three years later also with symptoms of significant drug withdrawal and, shortly afterwards, the children were placed on the Local Authority’s child protection register under the category of neglect. Although the mother went through a successful programme of detoxification in 2010 she was taking Class A drugs again by the following year and there were increasing reports of A being beyond her control.
5.	Following D’s birth in 2013 there were periods when the mother appeared to be on top of her drug addiction although there were more reports of the neglect of the children and A’s school poor attendance. However, in 2015 the mother’s life went to pieces and she started abusing drink and drugs again. In the same year A also went off the rails; she was involved in a lot of criminal activity and her school attendance was very poor. 
6.	In January 2016 A went to live with her father who has also had to grapple with drug addiction and is currently in rehabilitation. In February 2016 D was removed from the mother’s care by his father (the father) because he felt that the mother was not able to care for D adequately. In March 2016, A went to live with her father’s ex-girlfriend before being accommodated shortly afterwards and placed with foster carers. Following the issue of these proceedings, interim care orders were made in relation to A, B and C and, on 5th August 2016, an emergency protection order was made in relation to D causing him to leave the care of his father. D then spent time in foster care before moving to a family member until mid-November when he was removed from that family member and went into foster care, where he remains. In December 2016 the father was sentenced to imprisonment and in January 2017 the mother moved to the drug rehabilitation unit.
7.	At the time that the Local Authority started these proceedings in April 2016, therefore, D was living with his father, A was in foster care, the mother was using drugs again and the two children were in the temporary care of the maternal grandparents. In his first report, dated 16th May 2016, the Guardian summarised the background in this way: ‘it is clear from the chronology presented by the Local Authority that all four children have experienced a chronically unstable, chaotic and unsafe home environment due to their mother’s drug misuse, and the accompanying issues of neglect of their basic needs and poor emotional attunement. The children have been exposed to drug misuse directly and have witnessed domestic abuse and disturbances within their home’.
8.	Options – The mother does not suggest that she could care for any of the children at present. Despite A’s wish to live with the mother and despite A’s age, the mother accepts that A must remain in care, at least for the present. When the case started it was suggested on behalf of the mother that there should be an open ended adjournment of these proceedings on interim orders but it was quickly recognised that that suggestion is plainly not realistic (not least because it could not be said when and if the mother would be in a position to care for A); the mother suggested herself that it is going to be at least six months before she will have accommodation and that there then would have to be further time before A could live with her. 
9.	By the end of the case Mrs Thornton, who represented the mother with great skill, said that the mother knew the score in relation to the orders that needed to be made in relation to A but wanted the decision to be made by me. I think that it is very important that it should be recorded that the mother did not consent to a care order in relation to A and has consistently said that she would dearly like A to live with her despite recognising that the time is not right for that to happen. Thus A needs to know that the decision to make a care order in relation to her, as I intend, is mine and that her mother has done everything that she can to respect A’s wishes. 
10.	In relation to B and C the options are between care orders on their own, thereby bringing about foster care for the children for the indefinite future, or care and placement orders – fostering or adoption (with a six month time limit on the search for adopters). The mother again accepts that she could not have the children back living with her at present and accepts that care orders should be made. In this case the difference between adoption and fostering is considerable, a point upon which I will expand later.
11.	In relation to D there are four options. On the one hand the Local Authority and guardian propose care and placement orders in accordance with the care plan. The mother proposes that D should live with PA and then, when and if she is rehabilitated within the community, should return to her care. PA and the father propose that D should live with PA without any assumption that he would later move to the mother’s care (therefore there is a difference between the proposals of the mother and those of the father and PA). The fourth option is that D should be subject to a care order but not to a placement order – the effect of that would be that he would be fostered and not adopted. 
12.	The adult family members who are involved actively within these proceedings are the mother (‘M’), the father of D (‘the father’) and D’s paternal aunt (‘PA’). I will now give more details of them.
13.	The mother is in her late 30’s. She is an attractive, polite and intelligent woman who readily acknowledged that she had gone off the rails, as she put it, in 2015/16 and that she had let her children down. 
14.	During the hearing I put what I heard of the pressures upon her into diagrammatic form, creating this image:

Loss

Social isolation

Poor finances

Depression

Poor relationships

Own background

Housing difficulties 

Drink

Drugs

Four children 

Mother

15.	Taking each of those in turn, for much of the time the mother was trying to cope with the care of four children on her own; that, of itself is a heavy responsibility, I accept.  Although her parents helped her, she did not get any consistent help from any of the children’s fathers.
16.	However, the greatest damage to her chances of caring for her children successfully has arisen through her long standing addiction to drugs and drink.  Her addictions to drugs and drink have left her quite unable to care for her children at times and she accepted that, in 2015 and 2016 she was in no fit state to do so. I found it desperately sad to see a person who has so much about her speaking of the ruination that drink and drugs have brought about. However, there is no escaping the fact that she has a chronic addiction to drugs and alcohol and has only recently begun to address that addiction which, this time, took her to the very lowest rung of the life’s ladder.
17.	Her addictions have had a cluster bomb effect on her life. Her housing has been unstable and for much of last year she was homeless. So much so that when the father (a hardened criminal) was sent to prison in December 2016 she moved into his flat because she had nowhere else to go, I accept. She is now in drugs rehabilitation as I will describe later. Because of the chaotic nature of her lifestyle it has been very difficult for any statutory agency to offer her consistent support.
18.	The mother’s own background is one where she has not known stability for a very long time. Having been in care herself because she was beyond the control of her parents - who have tried their best to support her and the children - she has led a highly unstable and unsettled adulthood to date. As she has kept sliding down the ladder of life the way back up has become increasingly difficult for her.
19.	The relationships that she has formed have all been unstable, volatile and associated with drug taking. None of the relationships that she has had have lasted long. Her last relationship, with the father, was with a man who was a leading drugs dealer in class A drugs – the very things to which she was addicted. I do not believe for a moment that he never supplied the mother with drugs himself.  The father portrays himself as being someone who has been committed to the care of D, his son, but has been much more committed to his criminal way of life; he did care for D on his own for a period of six months which I will describe but could not sustain that care. 
20.	The clear impression that I have is that this father dipped in and out of the mother’s life when it suited him. I refer, in particular, to these points: a) when the mother was struggling with drug addiction and the care of four children there is no evidence to suggest that the father supported her; he was himself a lead supplier of class A drugs in 2015 and, even if supplying did stop in 2016 when he was on bail, he was still certainly heavily involved in the drug culture, as I will describe; b) when the mother was struggling with the care of D in late 2015 and early 2016 the solution found by the father was to remove D from her, he certainly did not work with anyone towards the restoration of D to the care of the mother and the society of his siblings, B and C; c) when the mother was homeless and her life was off the rails, as she described it, the father falsely denied the relationship with the mother to the Local Authority and to the court, suggesting at this hearing that he did not see his involvement with the mother as a relationship.
21.	The mother said, unsurprisingly, that her addictions led her into a downwards spiral of depression where she could not cope with demands of life. She said that she was in a particularly bad way in 2016 and was plainly not coping with the children or maintaining contact with the two middle children when they went into Local Authority foster care. There is a schedule that the Local Authority produced about the contact that she had with the children [I-2] and there were many contact sessions that she missed or attended late; she had no contact at all with B and C for three months between the end of September and the end of December 2016. Missing contact for this mother is not a signal that she did not care for her children – I have no doubt at all that she loves them all; it is a signal of just how wretched her life had become.
22.	Because the mother was not able to maintain her employment and was spending money on drugs, her finances were also in a mess and she could not organise the children’s needs properly – an example being that D was kept on milk feed for too long.
23.	All this led to the mother experiencing inevitable social isolation. In my opinion, it is particularly sad that a woman who has so much to offer should have turned to men like the father for her comfort.
24.	Finally, as each child left her care (A first, then D) and as she realised her own inability to cope, the burden of loss upon her must have been immense. Because she missed so much contact, her contact with the children is currently once a month for A, although I accept they communicated over the internet often, once a month for B and C and once a week for D. It does not in any way escape my attention that the outcome of these proceedings sought by the Local Authority and guardian would add immeasurably to her loss and to the loss of those around her, such as her eldest child and her parents.
25.	Regrettably, the mother did not engage in the parenting assessment that was attempted by the Local Authority (she attended only one of eight sessions) and did not keep appointments with the court appointed addictions expert, Dr Airey. The mother herself said that appointments were arranged at a time when her life was off the rails and she was heavily involved in drug taking and drink. 
26.	The mother did co-operate with drugs tests by Lextox whose report in relation to her is at E34. The report concludes that the mother had tested positive for crack cocaine, heroin and codeine for the period of mid-February 2016 to mid-May 2016 [E35 and E44]. The mother accepts that she was addicted during that period anyway so the report does not say anything that was not known already.
27.	It is also highly regrettable that it is only recently that the mother has started to engage with the local drugs service.  As the guardian said in evidence, if the mother had started on the route to drug and drink rehabilitation earlier, the case might have appeared very differently now – no one can put it higher than a ‘might’. She says that she is now drug-free but that state of affairs has only endured for two months against seventeen years of involvement with drugs albeit with some periods of abstinence during which the same social and emotional issues continued for her. I have studied the documents at A55 and C316 which report on the efforts that she has made now – ‘M has made a great start in her recovery journey with us [but] it is clear that there are still things that we would like [her] to work on…’ That is very impressive but it has to be regarded as only the beginning of what will now be a very long journey for this mother, as she acknowledged.
28.	Since the beginning of January 2017 she has lived in a detoxification centre , first in one city before moving to a sister unit in a nearby town. It is a condition of residence that she remains drink and drug free, a condition which, I accept, she is fulfilling. She says that she is not taking any drug substitutes either. She showed me a piece of paper [I-83] on which her very full weekly timetable of attendance at group meetings was recorded.
29.	I accept that the mother is engaging fully in her attempts to put her life straight and rid herself of her addictions. Bravely, she accepts that she is not in a state yet when she could care for any of her children. I am truly sorry to say that, with the history, breadth and profundity of the difficulties that she has had, it will be a long-time before anyone could possibly suggest that she has sorted herself out sufficiently to be able to look after them.
30.	There is also another side to the difficulties that the mother has had because the children have lived through many of them. Thus the mother’s difficulties have impacted heavily upon the children. As I will describe A went off the rails also in 2015 and 2016, failing to attend school and getting into serious trouble. B and C both say that they have witnessed things at home where the father was violent to the mother or the mother was taking drugs in their presence; although the mother and the father both deny what the children are alleging, it is beyond doubt that the children have a memory of living in circumstances where their mother abused drugs and drink (how could they not have memories of that?) and also where they experienced very grave and profound neglect. 
31.	If B and C were told that they were returning to their mother in the near future it would take a long time, in my opinion, before they would trust their mother to care for them. Unfortunately, they have had limited contact with their mother to dispel their recollections of the past. As to D, the father took him from the mother’s care in early 2016 because the mother was in such a poor state; therefore, D had experienced her neglect also and, over the past year, his need for security and stability has still not been met as he has lived with the mother, the father, foster carers, the family relative and then other foster carers.
32.	The father is in his mid-40s and is one of 15 siblings/ half-siblings. He has two other children besides D; one is a son, in his early 20s whom he sees often and the other is a daughter who is nearly in her teens and with whom he does not have contact. The father’s eldest son has written a heart-breaking letter to the court expressing his love for D and his fear of losing him to adoption (‘this has affected me worse than a death in the family, this is my only brother and I have always taken it upon myself to spend time with him and ensure that we have a close, loving and lasting relationship’).
33.	Prior to his recent sentence of imprisonment, the father had 22 convictions recorded against him for 34 offences, including an offence of wounding with intent in 1995 for which he was sentenced on conviction following trial to 10 years imprisonment [G464]; that offence involved attacking a man with a machete and nearly severing his arm, the father told me. His current sentence was imposed after he pleaded guilty to possession of Class A drugs with intent to supply. He said in evidence that he was sentenced on the basis that he had played a leadership role in the supply of Class A drugs to other lower level suppliers over the course of a number of years. He said that there were three levels of supplying in his understanding – leadership (the most serious), intermediary and then commercial supply (the lowest level of supply). He had been sentenced as a leader – a top level distributor principally of cocaine and crack cocaine in the town where PA remains living and where the mother now lives.
34.	The father had all of the accoutrements and paraphernalia that one would expect to be associated with that level of supply. He drove a top of the range BMW, had a large red drugs press in his flat (it stood about two feet high), scales, pressing plates and bags for distributing the drugs. There was a metal, bolted gate fixed behind his front door which he said, I find untruthfully, was to prevent the police breaking into his flat; in fact it was to make his criminal activities more secure and to prevent other criminals from breaking in. There is a photograph of the gate at C113. 
35.	The father’s flat is very close to the home of his sister; it is ‘just across the road’. It is perfectly plain that he used his sister’s flat to leave his drugs paraphernalia when it suited him; there are two definite occasions when this occurred as I will describe later. His sister, PA, admits that she knew that he took drugs and realised that he was engaging in criminal activity. However, she suggested that she was not aware of his drug supplying activity; for reasons that I will give I have no difficulty at all rejecting that. She knew what was happening and turned a blind eye to it.
36.	There is no doubt at all that the father loves D and thinks of himself as having cared for D very well during the six months that D was with him in 2016. I accept that the guardian, Local Authority, nursery and health visitor all reported that his care of D during the six months that D was with him in 2016 was good. However, by August it broke down and, what is more, if the true position in relation to the father’s criminal activities had been known to the Local Authority, the guardian or the court during those six months, there is no way whatsoever that they would have supported D being in his care.
37.	I find, unhesitatingly, that the father would not stand back and allow his sister or the mother to care for D without his involvement. I do not accept for a minute his suggestion that, if orders were in place limiting his involvement with D, that he would respect those orders if D were to be living with his sister or with the mother.  Of course the father will be in prison for the next three years before he is likely to be released on licence but: a) D will be aged only six when the father comes out of prison in three years’ time; b) the father would undoubtedly try to influence the life of D from prison.
38.	I say that because this father has had very little respect for the law for many years and any suggestion that he would do so now, keeping away from his son, is utterly naïve in my opinion. One only has to view his list of previous convictions and also the fact that he was twice found to be in breach of a restraining order to see that lawful restraints would be meaningless to him.  Further, the father is very close to his sister and she is to him; there could be no sensible suggestion that they would sever their lives if D were to be with PA. This father uses people – not only is that shown by the very fact of his supply of class A drugs to the community but it is also shown in his use of this mother and his use of his sister by leaving his paraphernalia in her house.
39.	I have no doubt at all that, as soon as the father was out of prison, he would expect to be fully involved with his sister and with his son, if D were to be living with her. I do not accept that there could be any confidence at all that he would comply with conditions on his licence that he should have no or only limited contact with his child on release or that injunctions would be of any real protective value. Nor do I consider that it can be assumed that conditions to that effect would be attached to his licence in any event. Injunctions would only be effective if steps were taken to enforce them on proven breaches. Typically of men in the circumstances of this father he regards himself as a stronger character than the mother and, if D were in her care, he would not leave her to care for D on her own; I have no doubt of that whatsoever.
40.	The mother says that she has finished her relationship with him [C311]. It is very difficult to know whether that is the current state of affairs between them, particularly in the light of the way that the father defines the word ‘relationship’. Eventually it became clear that the mother and father had continued their relationship together throughout 2016 until the father was sent to prison, that is until two months ago. Since he has been in prison the mother has visited him twice; she said that this was to discuss the care of D but I cannot regard her evidence on that issue as reliable I am afraid. She also lived in his flat until she went to the rehabilitation centre in January. The father spoke in terms of apparent affection and admiration of the mother during this hearing and I think that there is a very real possibility that, if D were in the care of the mother or in the care of PA, the parents would resume a relationship of a kind together.
41.	However, far more importantly, I do not accept that this mother is beyond the power of this father. I have no doubt at all that he would attempt to exercise that power over her if she had D in her care. The same goes for his sister.
42.	Like the mother, the father engaged in drugs tests by Lextox as part of these proceedings. The report of Lextox dated 1st June 2016 states that the father ‘has tested positive for crack cocaine and heroin use…it is not possible to determine accurately the period of drug use. The time covered by the sample could be approximately six months prior to the collection date’ [E21 and E30]. The father accepts that he used crack cocaine during this period but not heroin. In my opinion, it doesn’t matter at all for the purposes of this case whether the class A drugs that he used were cocaine or heroin. Insofar as it is necessary I find that the father had taken heroin during that period, not only on the basis of the test results but also on the strength of the report of the psychiatric expert, Dr Airey, who was not called in evidence by any party.
43.	Unlike the mother, the father did co-operate in the preparation of a report by Dr Airey [E50]. He accepted, when speaking to the doctor, that he was a regular user of powder and crack cocaine [E52] but denied using heroin. At E52 Dr Airey says: ‘the testing company notes that the levels of cocaine within the hair were high. The heroin related chemicals were reported to be at a medium level. It is difficult to envisage a situation whereby such a result would be obtained without heroin being deliberately and consciously taken’. 
44.	At E62 Dr Airey said that ‘the father has it within him to secure a drug free lifestyle but, for this to occur, he needs to distance himself from the substance misusing peer group and crucially, either remain single or be with a partner who does not use drugs…I am concerned that he may well be more enmeshed in the local drug culture than he volunteered at interview and, if this is the case, this would be a significant negative prognosticant’. Plainly, on the evidence that I have heard, the father was heavily involved in the local drug culture. I also note the following passage from Dr Airey’s report, written in August 2016 just before D left the father’s care, at E62: ‘it would seem that he has established a pattern of using drugs at weekends, with a group of friends. This means that he has a drug using friendship group. This will pose difficulties in someone who is trying to secure abstinence, but who is continually coming across drug using friends’. 
45.	The father suggested that, when he was taking drugs during this time, D would be with PA. I find it unsurprising that this father associates with other drug users and that must mean that there is a strong possibility that he will revert to those friendships when he leaves custody. I also find it very difficult to accept that this father would have been able to confine his drug use and involvement exclusively to weekends, given his history – he did not do any lawful work during this period and I think it superficial to think that, as a father living with one child and an available sister across the road, he would confine his social activity exclusively to weekends.
46.	The father also co-operated in the preparation of a report by the independent social worker, Julia Denny [E83]. Prior to the father’s sentence of imprisonment, Ms Denny said: ‘I am in some difficulty recommending that the father resumes care of D for a number of reasons. These include among other things: i) his admission to recently using crack cocaine and a positive drug test for heroin, ii) the possibility that the father could be sent to prison for the offence with which he was charged; iii) his lack of willingness to engage with services that have been offered…and his difficulty in working with the social worker and iv) he allowed M to use class A drugs in his home’. As to two of the four points that she made, since the report was written the father has been sentenced to imprisonment for the offences that he faced and it has to be recorded that the mother denies using drugs in the father’s accommodation, although I do not accept her denial. Ms Denny, therefore, did not support the placement of D with his father and since she reported the facts have become much more apparent and also the father is now in prison.
47.	When the father gave evidence I found him to be a very self-centred, controlling and over assertive man. During the course of the hearing he repeatedly tried to talk over people from the secure cell in court and gesticulated across the court at witnesses and others involved in the case. He gave a very clear display of the influence and power that he seeks to exercise over the mother and his sister, even in court. 
48.	I think it highly unlikely that he will cease his criminal activities following his release. He is now in his mid-forties and has engaged in criminal activity for a long time. He also is a long-standing drugs user and spends his time with other drug users. I have no doubt that he loves his son, D, but I think it highly unlikely that he would ever be in a position to care for D himself and I think that he would undermine D’s home with PA or the mother if D were living with either of them. He would insist on playing a significant role in D’s life. I found the father to be very possessive of D without showing any mature understanding of the responsibility that goes with parenting. 
49.	PA is the paternal aunt of D and the father’s sister. She is in her late 40s and is not in paid employment. She has two daughters (both under ten), who live with her and has two other children who are now adult and live independently. The father of her children stays with the family at weekends. There is no statutory involvement with any of her children and on the one occasion when a Local Authority enquiry was carried out in relation to them, it was concluded that there would be no basis for such an involvement.
50.	 Wrongly it was said by Ms Denny, the independent social worker, that PA was assessed by the Local Authority as a potential carer of these three children in November 2015. She wasn’t. She was assessed as to whether she was a potential carer of three other family children (that is, the three children of PA’s eldest brother, W). That assessment was negative. The confusion arose because there was a heavily redacted copy of the assessment that was carried out by a social worker, Sam Haines. To make any sense of the assessment it was necessary for me to call for an unredacted copy of the assessment and, by agreement with the advocates, the contents of that copy were made known to them for use in court but copies were not released to the parties themselves. A key feature of that negative assessment, and the subsequent negative assessments, was that PA did not act protectively of family children when faced with risks to them from other adult family members.
51.	However, subsequent to that assessment, PA was assessed by the Local Authority social worker in this case as a potential carer of D only and the result was again negative. By order made in these proceedings she was then assessed further by the independent social worker, Julia Denny, and the outcome of that assessment, dated 10th January 2017, was also negative [C243]. 
52.	The negative assessments of PA’s ability to care for D focussed on the following contentions:
i)	The relationship between PA and the father is so emotionally and socially proximate that she would be unable to protect D from the harmful aspects of the father’s behaviour and would continue to be under his influence. In my opinion that contention is plainly made out.
ii)	Specifically, she was aware of her brother’s criminal activity and involvement with drugs and did nothing to protect D (or, indeed, her own children) from that. The father’s drugs contaminated paraphernalia - snap seal bags, scales, £400 and pressing plates - were found in her home on 8th October 2015 and she said, at the time, that she did not know how they got there [G571] even though she knew they were her brothers. She visited his flat regularly and he often visited her home. She knew about the metal gate and the press. They lived very close to each other. She knew that the father was not in lawful work but had a wealthy lifestyle. She knew of his criminal past. She knew he took drugs. Her daughter commented to her that the father sniffed, not because he had a cold but because of drugs. As Dr Airey recorded, PA cared for D in 2016 at weekends when her brother went out and must have known of his associates. She was in regular contact with him by phone; they contacted each other on the father’s mobile five times a day on average between September and October 2015 – G576. PA accepted that she turned a blind eye to this, leading to the obvious question: ‘How could she do so when she knew he was caring for D and also when she was allowing him into the home and society of her own two young children?. There was no answer to that other than that she is unable to protect children from the harmful influence of her brother.
iii)	Thus, in generality, it is contended that PA would be unlikely to maintain the role of primary carer of D when faced with competing demands from the parents. In my opinion that contention is also plainly made out. In relation to the mother, I cannot envisage that the mother would distance herself from D if D were to live with PA. What mother would do so? I do not accept the analogy with the mother’s support of her parents in the care of her twenty year old child, I am afraid, because that daughter was available to the mother by liberal family arrangement. Here it is suggested that, if D lived with PA, the mother should accept that she should not see her son, save under heavily supervised arrangements, despite the fact that D would be living very nearby. I have already expressed my opinion that the father would not release his influence over PA if D were living with her.
iv)	PA had not alerted the Local Authority about the circumstances in which she knew that the children were living with M and the father before the start of these proceedings. I accept the points made, with skill, by Ms Knowles and Mrs Thornton that, during 2015 and 2016 there was statutory and court involvement with the family and that, following the issue of these proceedings, the court sanctioned the continuation of D’s placement with his father when making an interim supervision order. I also accept that there were positive reports from the nursery, health visitor, social worker and guardian of the father’s care of D during the first half of 2016. However, only now has the father’s true lifestyle become apparent. The aunt knew of this father’s lifestyle and knew that he was involved in criminal activity. She knew that he left his paraphernalia in her house on at least one occasion. She must have known that the father was totally unsuited to have the care of a young child whilst living in that lifestyle and that the father was concealing the truth. She did nothing about it. Therefore I have no difficulty at all in accepting that aspect of the Local Authority’s contentions. As to PA’s awareness of the state of the mother, that must have been apparent to everyone and I do not think that PA can bear the responsibility for that.
v)	She had allowed a nephew (‘N’) to stay in her home, where her own two young children were living also, for six months from December 2011 at a time when he was on bail for attempted murder. This contention took a great deal of time to unravel because there was only shadowy information about it when the case started. In the end the contention was not pursued by the Local Authority, and rightly so. The nephew had lived with the aunt as a condition of his bail and was acquitted of the charge against him. Although, depending on the circumstances, the provision of a home to a person on bail for that sort of offence when caring for young children might be viewed as very unwise, the circumstances were so poorly defined before me as to render this contention nebulous. 
vi)	Realising that the child of her cousin had sustained injuries (which, it transpired included fractures) she did not alert professionals in 2012. This contention again was very poorly defined at the start of the case and necessitated the provision of unredacted material as the hearing progressed. However, as the material came to light it became increasingly clear that this contention has validity, as PA accepted in her closing address. In summary, PA’s cousin had a child, J. PA was asked to be present when J’s mother had contact. On four occasions J came to that contact with injuries. After the second injury PA knew that the father of J had not taken the child for further medical examination as he had been advised to do and also that the child was on the child protection register. When J attended with injuries on two further occasions she did not bring those injuries to the attention of the Local Authority involved, despite knowing of the authority’s involvement. As events turned out, by the time of the fourth injuries, J had suffered multiple fractures that the court subsequently found were caused by J’s father. J has now been adopted. Faced with the material that emerged, PA accepted that she had been naïve and wrong to have accepted the explanations given by J’s father for the injuries and had not acted with sufficient protection of J.
vii)	Her home is small and cluttered (it is ‘festooned with clutter’ – C250). This is a make-weight contention in my opinion. It certainly is not enough to lead to statutory involvement with her own children and does not raise issues that are proportionate to the orders sought. There must be many homes like this. I ignore this contention altogether.
viii)	Each of the assessors doubted PA’s ability to be truthful with professionals. In the light of the above I accept that it is highly unlikely that PA would feel able to work collaboratively with a supervising local authority if D were to be in her care. I have no doubt that she would be polite, as she was in court, and also would show a loving regard for D, as she does to her own children. However, if the father or the mother tried to influence her in the care of D, or involve themselves beyond the agreed parameters, as they would, I do not think that PA would be able to resist them and I do not think that she would reveal what was happening to others. The history of this case, the history of her relationship with her brother and the events with J make that very plain.
52.	Therefore, for reasons which will already be apparent, I find that D would not be safe in the care of PA. He would be highly likely to experience a chaotic upbringing where the mother and father were constantly trying to involve themselves in D’s life and where the father would present a particular danger to his welfare. As the evidence has unravelled I have been left of the very clear opinion that it would be utterly irresponsible to leave D in PA’s care.
53.	A - I now need to give further detail of the four children. A is separately represented. She has significant behavioural issues and has engaged in criminal activity; she has nine criminal offences recorded against her – G468 and, at C23, it is said that she was involved in 20 criminal incidents in 2015. She was excluded from school on 7th November 2016 and now participates in a special educational provision which caters for children with challenging behaviour. Her previous foster carers gave notice because they felt that they were no longer able to care for her and so she has moved, recently, to new carers [C263]. 
54.	Prior to the commencement of the hearing I met A in the presence of her solicitor and the guardian. A positon statement had also been filed on her behalf by then. A has made it very plain that she wishes to return to live with her mother. She does not know what the other parties in the case are saying, she told me, and therefore she does not know that her mother recognises that she is not currently able to care for her. A meeting was arranged recently when it was hoped the mother would be able to discuss this with A but the meeting broke down when the social worker joined the discussion and A ran away from the food store where the meeting was being held. 
55.	At the meeting that I held with A, accompanied by her solicitor and the guardian, she expressed her views that, if she did not return home to her mother, the following contact would represent her minimum expectation: once a fortnight (mother), once a month (her half-siblings) and once a month (maternal grandparents). The maternal grandparents have been a consistent part of her life and she has been having monthly staying contact with them and, as a consequence, she has also had contact with her 20 year old half-sister as well.
56.	I note that, in his first report, the Guardian described a meeting with A in this way: ‘she presented very much with a precocious outlook – suggesting that she would be able to return home at any time because she is able to look after herself. Such false maturity is very common among children who have experienced chronic neglect of both their basic needs and emotional needs and it was very difficult to help A understand that such a plan would not be safe for her at this stage’. Having met A myself I can well understand why the Guardian might say that. When I met her she was dressed and made up immaculately and had the outward appearance of someone in her late teens; however her conversation was of a person who was in her early teens or even younger. The Guardian goes on to say of her at E7: ‘A is clearly a child with very complex needs, having experienced significant rejection and lack of consistent regard for her emotional needs’. I accept that is so.
57.	The Local Authority proposes that the mother should have contact every six weeks with A, the maternal grandparents should have monthly staying contact with her and that inter-sibling should depend upon the other substantive orders that are made - see D111 for details which include that, if any of the children are placed for adoption, there should only be letter box contact between the siblings. 
58.	Like most teenagers, A has a mobile phone and access to the internet so contact by those means happens frequently in addition to the arranged contact, to the concern of the current foster carers and the social worker; the social worker thought that the level of that contact is unsettling for A and also leads to A receiving information of an adult nature from her mother and also from PA. In closing speeches Mrs Thornton helpfully informed me that, following discussion outside court, the mother accepted with the agreement of the other parties that, if A is in care, she would only contact A by phone twice a week. It was also agreed between the parties that, if A is in care, direct contact should be once a month to begin with.
59.	B and C are said to be thriving in their current foster placement but would not be able to remain there in the long-term. 
60.	The evidence of the Local Authority is that B does not want to return to the care of the mother given her experiences of living with her in the past. The mother does not accept that B expresses any such consistent wish and gave evidence of the obvious delight that B shows in her presence. I accept that what B says about her wishes as a nine year old child varies, depending upon her circumstances at the time of the discussion and the person to whom she is speaking; however, I also accept that B has a very clear memory of just how bad life became when she was living with her mother.
61.	The guardian describes B as a quiet and timid child who has experienced a highly inconsistent and frightening home environment where, evidently, she has not felt safe. She is also thought to be an insightful child who knew what was going on around her. Of her the guardian said at E7: ‘The suggestion is that B has developed significant anxiety regarding her mother’s health, related to her drug misuse. She has also described going hungry and being sleep-deprived due to anxiety regarding adult arguments within the home. Similar to her older sister, B’s school attendance has been poor and without appropriate intervention, it is highly likely that she will be at similar risk to A of drifting into crime and other unsafe behaviours as she becomes older’. I accept that evidence from the guardian.
62.	C is described as an energetic little boy who, prior to living with foster carers, behaved appropriately at school but was out of control at home [E7]. He is also very close to his half-sister, B. The care plan is that the two children should not be separated – if adopters cannot be found to take both children the plan will revert to long-term fostering.
63.	The options involving these two children are between fostering, which the mother accepts through conceding a care order, on the one hand and the twin tracking of adoption and fostering proposed by the Local Authority and guardian (with adoption being sought under a placement order for six months) on the other hand.  I accept that an adoptive placement that will take two children of this age may well not be easy to find.  These two children now have very specific needs and a lot of emotional damage has to be repaired. At the age of nine B is very late for adoption, although C is of a slightly more adoptable age.  The Local Authority and guardian both stress however that, given the neglectful upbringing that these children have suffered so far they need, if possible, the security, stability and permanence that only adoption can offer.
64.	D lived with the mother throughout his life until the father removed him from her in February 2016. He was then removed from his father’s care under an emergency protection order on 5th August 2016 having been subject to interim supervision orders since 13th May 2016.
65.	Although, as I have described, there was a cluster of professional evidence that spoke well of the father’s care of A, on 2nd August 2016 the social worker wrote a statement suggesting that the father was not co-operating with the supervision and that the father was not caring for A adequately [C72]. By an application dated 28th July 2016 the Local Authority therefore sought the restoration of the interim issues before the court. Following the listing of the interim hearing an incident took place on 3rd August 2016 which is described in the police statements at C103 and C112 – the mother was found at the father’s property and, it is said at C104, admitted that she had taken heroin, cocaine and crack cocaine at the property; the mother denies that she had taken drugs in the father's house but, I find, it is highly likely that she had. The police statement at C104 also suggests that the father’s flat was cluttered and that the police officer was ‘alarmed at the lack of food’ there.  When the father arrived and saw the police outside the property he drove off at speed and was involved in a collision [C112]. 
66.	Following the making of the Emergency Protection Order D was then placed with Local Authority foster carers while the Local Authority carried out an assessment of his paternal cousin (N) as a potential carer. In September 2016, D went to live with the cousin (a woman in her late 20s) under the Parenting Regulations but on 16th November 2016 an interim care order was made removing him from the cousin because of her dishonesty about her continued relationship with the father of her children and her hostility to the Local Authority made it difficult for the Local Authority to monitor the placement. The social worker gave evidence that when he was removed from the cousin he showed very little emotional reaction which led the social worker to be surprised and also to say that she regards D as a very damaged little boy. She said that the basis of that damage must lie, at least in part, in the experiences that he had when living with his parents.
67.	D has had regular contact with his mother since he left the care of his father in August 2016. The father chose not to have contact with D following his removal until the end of September 2016 but has attended since then. The table at I-2 shows the mother attending, often with the father until his imprisonment, for contact with D and the reports of contact are positive. I accept that the mother did make a lot of effort to make the contact with D positive and showed her genuine affection for D when she saw him, as did the father. I also accept that that D, at the age of three, knows and loves his mother, showing delight when he sees her. 
68.	Although there is an interim care order in relation to D and, therefore, the statutory requirements relating to parental contact under section 34 of The Children Act 1989 arise, I was told there was no order under section 34(4) authorising the Local Authority to refuse to allow contact between D and his father since the father has been in prison. Despite that no contact has taken place during that period.
69.	Law – This case involves the following key legal considerations:
i)	Nature, law and common sense require that it be recognised that the best place for these children to live is within their natural family unless proven and proportionate necessity otherwise demands. Although the mother does not offer herself as an immediate carer for any of the children, if there is a realistic prospect that any of them could be cared for by her within a timescale that is consistent with their welfare, they should be able to do so. In relation to D, PA is the one family member who offers herself as able to care for him now; although she does not have an established family life with D in the terms of Article 8 of the European Convention, she is the only means, at present, by which D could retain a place within his own family. She is the only available family member. Therefore, if D can be placed with PA consistently with his welfare he should be.
ii)	In this case the stakes for these children are incredibly high. The Local Authority’s care plans would see the three youngest children cut off from their parents, the rest of their extensive family members and, save for the joint placement of B and C, from their siblings. A would see her three siblings being adopted or, possibly in relation to B and C in long-term foster care if an adoptive placement cannot be found. B and C would lose contact with A and with D. The loss, as A would experience it, of her half-siblings and the continued separation from her mother may have a significant impact upon the extent to which A will co-operate with the Local Authority since she is bound to see it as the author of the family disintegration. D would lose contact with all three of his half-siblings. That state of affairs would be likely to endure throughout the lives of these children. The decimation of this family that would arise from making the orders sought should only be directed by the court if no other solution consistent with the children’s welfare is available. These children know each other and were brought up together until their home lives fell apart in 2015 and 2016; understandably, A (at very least among the group) has a particularly strong protectiveness to her sibling group. Therefore the jurisprudence of Re B [2013] UKSC 33 is of considerable importance in this case.
iii)	In circumstances like this where there are four children who each have different needs, the children have to be considered individually. The issues relating to A, B, C and D are interlinked on some factors but also each raise some very distinct and individual factors – the strongest example, and it is only an example, of what I mean is that PA only seeks the care of D.
iv)	Society must be prepared to recognise that there is a wide range in standards of parenting and the court must not apply the yardstick of optimal parenting. It is only if the circumstances of the case are exceptional that children will be removed from their families under care and placement orders. The fact that a parent may take drugs or may engage in criminal activity does not mean that the children of that parent should be deprived of the right to be brought up by that parent. There has to be an holistic evaluation of each child’s welfare and the ability of each parent and each relevant family member to care for each child. The only father directly involved in this hearing has been D’s father and, although he cannot put himself forward as a carer of D, his wishes and feelings are important, both by operation of statute (section 1(4)(f) (iii) of the 2002 Act) and common sense; as D’s father he has an important voice in what should happen to his son. The overview of the mother’s circumstances as shown in the diagram above is devastating to her ability to offer herself as a carer of her children in the foreseeable future and that is deeply distressing for anyone to observe. The overview of the father is of a man who is a hardened criminal who has no realistic prospect of offering himself as a safe carer of a young child. The real complication about the offer of PA to care for D, in overview, is that she would never be able to resist the competing claims by both of the parents to be directly involved in D’s care and would have no ability to protect D from the danger that her brother, the father, represents.
v)	Before the court could consider making a care or placement order the threshold criteria in section 31 of The Children Act 1989 must be fulfilled. Here the threshold criteria are agreed in terms that will be attached to the order that I make. I will not repeat those terms here but I accept them. Therefore this case is focussed on the Convention rights of the family and the welfare provisions of the 1989 and 2002 Act, in which I include, for brevity, the provisions of section 52(1)(b) of the 2002 Act because of its reference to welfare.
vi)	Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights is heavily engaged in relation to the Local Authority’s applications. Care and placement orders involve a very significant invasion of the rights of this family to have a life together. That invasion can only be justified if it is a) necessary, b) proportionate to the proven circumstances of the case and c) in accordance with the law.
vii)	The domestic law of this country is to be found in s31 of The Children Act 1989 (the threshold criteria to which I have already referred), section 1 of the Children Act 1989 (the welfare provisions of the 1989 Act relating to the care applications) and sections 52 and 1 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 (relating to the placement applications).
viii)	In this case there is no placement application in relation to A and, therefore, her welfare must be considered under the provisions of section 1 of the 1989 Act; by that statutory provision the welfare of A is the paramount consideration and, in assessing her welfare the court must apply the welfare checklist in section 1(3) of the 1989 Act. 
ix)	In relation to the three younger children the applications relating to them must be considered under both the 1989 and 2002 Acts. Because sequential analysis is logically flawed it is necessary to conduct the primary analysis concerning those three children by applying the provisions relating to the applications for the most invasive orders – that is the placement applications under the 2002 Act since they are dominant and the most invasive of family life.
x)	Each known father of the children has parental responsibility for the children concerned. In particular, the father has parental responsibility for D. Therefore the consent of the fathers of C and D has to be considered in relation to the placement applications. 
xi)	In relation to the placement application it is necessary for the Local Authority to satisfy the court under section 52 of the 2002 Act that the agreement of the parents with parental responsibility to their respective children being placed for adoption should be dispensed with on the grounds that the welfare of each child concerned so requires. That statutory provision has been interpreted in cases called Re P (Placement Orders: Parental Consent) [2008] 2 FLR 625 and Re B-S (Adoption: Application of s47(5)) [2014] 1 FLR 1035 in terms that are summarised at page 285 of the Red Book and which I will not repeat here. 
xii)	Section 1 of the 2002 Act contains the welfare provisions of that Act by which the welfare of each child subject to a placement application, throughout their respective lives, is the paramount consideration of the court. The application for a placement order overshadows the application for a care order and, therefore, the main welfare determination needs to be made by reference to the provisions of that Act and, in particular, the more stringent welfare checklist in section 1(4) of it.
xiii)	In considering the competing options for the children’s future the court must carry out an holistic or joined-up evaluation of them, weighing up the pros and cons that they represent. It is obviously wrong to look at the options one by one (in what lawyers have come to call linear analysis) because that can lead to a mistaken result where the order that is most invasive of family life is made by default.
xiv)	In considering the care that a parent might be able to provide for a child it is important to recollect the concept of parenting with support. The President stressed the significance of the concept in a reported case called D (A Child) (No 3) [2016] EWFC 1 in which he referred to the decision of the then Gillen J in Re G and A (Care Order: Freeing Order: Parents with a Learning Disability) [2006] NIFam 8, para 5. The very purpose of the welfare state is to provide support for those in need (as was said in Soares de Milo v Portugal, ECHR, Requête no 72850/14, para 106). The Local Authority must place evidence before the court of the support that is available to parents so that the court is then able to make a satisfactory welfare evaluation – Re W [2013] EWCA Civ 1227. In this case the point is important because it is being suggested that, with support and education PA, might be able to care for D and it is also being said that, following support with drug and drink rehabilitation the mother might be supported to care for her children. For reasons that I have already made plain, I do not think that either point has any validity; no amount of support or education could render PA a safe carer of D in these circumstances and the mother will not be in a position to care for any of her children for a long time even with full rehabilitative support.
70.	The differences between fostering and adoption – In the case of Re V (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 913 Black LJ said at paragraphs 95 and 96:
•	I do not think that fostering and adoption can, in fact, be equated in terms of what they offer by way of security. I do not intend to embark on a comprehensive comparison of the two arrangements, merely to highlight some of the material differences. What I say should not be taken as a substitute for professional advice to the court from social services and/or the guardian in any case in which this is a significant issue. 
•	 With that caveat, I make the following observations:
i)	Adoption makes the child a permanent part of the adoptive family to which he or she fully belongs. To the child, it is likely therefore to "feel" different from fostering. Adoptions do, of course, fail but the commitment of the adoptive family is of a different nature to that of a local authority foster carer whose circumstances may change, however devoted he or she is, and who is free to determine the caring arrangement. 
ii)	Whereas the parents may apply for the discharge of a care order with a view to getting the child back to live with them, once an adoption order is made, it is made for all time. 
iii)	Contact in the adoption context is also a different matter from contact in the context of a fostering arrangement. Where a child is in the care of a local authority, the starting point is that the authority is obliged to allow the child reasonable contact with his parents (section 34(1) Children Act 1989). The contact position can, of course, be regulated by alternative orders under section 34 but the situation still contrasts markedly with that of an adoptive child. There are open adoptions, where the child sees his or her natural parents, but I think it would be fair to say that such arrangements tend not to be seen where the adoptive parents are not in full agreement. Once the adoption order has been made, the natural parents normally need leave before they can apply for contact.  
iv)	Routine life is different for the adopted child in that once he or she is adopted, the local authority have no further role in his or her life (no local authority medicals, no local authority reviews, no need to consult the social worker over school trips abroad, for example). 
71.	In this case the differences between fostering and adoption for the three youngest children are significant and complex. The evidence of the social services and of the guardian is to the effect that adoption is in the best interests of each of those children. In my respectful opinion, the choice between adoption and fostering in a case such as this has to be a heavily and very carefully balanced one based on the background and circumstances of the specific children concerned – that is, it is a judgment call based on the paramount welfare of the children involved.
72.	In favour of long-term fostering there are the following important balancing factors:
i)	Fostering would allow the children to maintain their family identities and to revert to the care of their parents if any of the parents rehabilitate themselves sufficiently for this to occur. That is a particularly important factor relating to the children’s relationship with the mother.
ii)	Fostering would allow the sibling group to maintain its identity even though they would be living in three separate households. The children would not feel that they have lost each other.
iii)	Fostering would allow the family to maintain contact both as between the siblings but also with the parents and other family members, including the parent’s elder children and the grandparents.
iv)	In later life the children would avoid the potential sense of loss of identity and family that those who have been adopted sometimes feel as adults.
v)	Fostering would also involve professional involvement with the children through statutory reviews and might make access to professional help easier. Adoption aftercare for adopters who encounter difficulties with adopted children is not always as easy to find as is sometimes suggested - I have direct experience of this from at least one other case.
73.	In my opinion, the key differences between fostering and adoption for these children would lie in the security and permanence that adoption would provide. These children have known a highly neglectful and chaotic upbringing so far. D has moved too many times. The children need to know where their futures lie in the long-term. They also need commitment from their carers that may well need to exceed their minorities.
74.	Evidence - I now wish to refer to some of the specific evidence that I have heard and read. I want to begin with the reports of the guardian. This case benefits from the evidence of a particularly experienced and wise guardian. I accept that this guardian has given this case very careful thought and is as conscious as I am of the decimation that arises for this family if the orders sought by the Local Authority are made. 
75.	The guardian’s reports - In his report for the IRH, dated 5th December 2016, Mr Plummer, the guardian, summarised his perception of the background by saying: ‘The chronology provided by the Local Authority indicates that the mother has been a chaotic poly-drug user from her early adulthood. She has failed to engage consistently with support services aimed at addressing her dependency and any improvements in her parenting capacity have not been sustained…all the children have experienced neglect of their basic physical and emotional needs over a prolonged period and have been subject to Child Protection Plans three times, in different Local Authorities. The children have been exposed to chaotic and inconsistent parenting, parental drug misuse and domestic abuse between adults. A’s education has been disrupted by very poor school attendance and she has committed crimes. The Local Authority statement also suggests that A has been sexually active at the age of 12 and has used drugs herself. Although there was a period of relative stability, A continues to be disruptive at school and her behaviour is difficult to manage within her current foster placement…The mother has not engaged consistently with any professionals and has missed contact with the children for prolonged periods’.
76.	In his report for the IRH the guardian also said that, in his view ‘B and C will need to experience a sense of permanency within their care arrangements if they are not to experience further emotional rejection and instability in the future, which may impact upon their achieving their very obvious potential and I am very surprised indeed that the Local Authority has not put forward plans for achieving permanency for these very vulnerable children via adoption’. Thereafter the Local Authority’s care plans changed to the present proposal that B and C should be subject to care and placement orders. In that report he also supported the Local Authority’s application that D should be placed for adoption.
77.	In his final report, dated 21st February 2017, the Guardian repeated his views that the children should each be subject to care orders and that the three youngest children should also be subject to placement orders.
78.	In his oral evidence the guardian said, amongst other things:
i)	He regarded it as positive that the mother has started to address her long standing addiction problems. However, this has been a very recent development and that leads him to conclude that the time has passed for the three younger children to be able to wait – they need permanence now, he said.
ii)	Given A’s age and circumstances she is in a different position to the other children. It would be very important for the Local Authority to share PR so as to have some sort of control over the arrangements for her. Six months may well be an unrealistic timescale to consider before A could be returned to the mother – there are many steps that the mother needs to take before this could be achieved. It is really important that the mother should support A in her placement because of the risks of A absconding and being vulnerable to all the other risks that would obviously then arise.
iii)	He does not support the return of D to the family. The evidence has shown the closeness of the relationship between PA and the father. PA’s loyalty to the family and her inability to see the risks that the father presents mean that she could not care for D independently from him.
iv)	He was asked whether it would be better for the three children to remain in foster care where they can maintain their family attachments and might be able to revert to the family when they are older. Mrs Thornton asked: would not the shattering of attachments through adoption have such a harmful effect on them that fostering would be in the interests of B, C and D, rather than adoption? If they were adopted, would there not be a distinct risk that the adoptive placement would come under profound pressure from the breaking of attachments and the very real possibility that the children may try to contact each other through social media? Each of the questions was put to Mr Plummer and he recognised their significance as I do. However, in D’s circumstances long term fostering would not offer him the stability, security and permanence that D needs, the guardian replied. In B and C’s case there is a more difficult balance between the two options given their different ages and experiences, he accepted. However, Mr Plummer thought that it was important for both children to have the opportunity of permanence in an adoptive placement if one can be found. There would be at least an equal risk of breakdown in foster care. Further an adoptive placement would create a place for the children within their adoptive families that would endure throughout the children’s lives whereas foster placements would not. 
79.	I accept the guardian’s evidence, painful though that evidence was to give and hear.
80.	Sarah Phillips (social worker) – Ms Phillips is the principal social worker in this case. She is an experienced and mature social worker who gave evidence of a very high quality, in my opinion. I have already referred to a number of points arising from her evidence but, in addition, she made these specific points:
i)	She said that the mother misled her about the contact that she had with the father since his imprisonment. On 14th February 2017 the mother told the social worker that she had only visited the father once in prison whereas in fact she had visited on another occasion, that is on the very day before the conversation took place. In her statement, dated 7th February (a week before the conversation), the mother said at C311 that she did not intend to visit the father in prison but then did so on 13th February. The mother suggested that there had been a misunderstanding on 14th February 2017 and that she did not think that she needed to tell the social worker about the visit the day before. I do not accept that is so. It is clear that the mother wanted to keep quiet about the second visit. 
ii)	It would be short-sighted to base a decision on the mother’s recent progress in drug and drink rehabilitation given the duration of her addiction. She said that the children’s lives cannot be put on hold any longer. 
iii)	She recognised that the mother is very able to occupy the children’s time during contact and to give them attention. She said that the last two contacts with B and C have been particularly positive as the contact records show. 
iv)	She said that she thought that, for any children, the severance of the tie between them and the natural family would be a major step but that the ties between the mother and these children have been weakened already. B and C have enough recollection of how things were when they lived at home and this has led B to say that she doesn’t wish to return to her mother. As far as I am concerned, the tie may have been weakened but that does not detract from the enormity of the decisions that are being proposed by the Local Authority or from the principles of law that I have stated.
v)	She was asked what would happen if A does not return to the mother’s care – would A be containable in foster care? She said that there will be a real struggle to maintain her foster care if the mother does not support it and, if the foster care broke down, A could ricochet around the care system. She said that A needs to be told that the long-term plan is that she will remain in care –the care that she experienced when at home with the mother was so dire that she cannot be left with the idea that she will return to her. She said that A will not be containable if the message is not clear or if she thinks that foster care is no more than a short-term arrangement. I think that the arrangements for A and what A is told about them will require very sensitive handling. If she feels ignored and trapped in long-term care there is a real danger that she will rebel against it; if she sees foster care as a temporary arrangement she would not settle and may well reject any exercise of authority over her by the foster carers and the Local Authority.
vi)	She was asked why B and C should be placed for adoption rather than in foster care. She said that C is only aged six and so he would be in the care system for a long time if fostered. Adoption would offer them a chance of permanence and commitment and that would be of particular importance to them, if it were to be achievable, given their backgrounds. She said that neither child has any contact with their respective fathers and that the mother’s contact with the children has been very spasmodic. She said that she believes that B and C have detached from their mother and do not have any expectations of her in the light of the chronic neglect that they experienced when living with her. Having considered the totality of the evidence I do not accept that B and C have detached entirely from their mother; the last two contact sessions have chosen their continued affection for her and they have a natural connection to the mother with whom they lived until last year. However, I do accept that the neglect that they experienced when living with their mother and the limited contact that they have had with her have significantly weakened their trust in their mother and the depth of their attachment.
81.	Sam Haines – She is the social worker who did the first viability assessment of PA, the paternal aunt of D in November 2015 in relation to the three children of another family member. Much of her questioning in court at this hearing arose in an attempt to understand the allegations concerning the nephew who was bailed to PA’s house when accused of attempted murder and also concerning the cousin and the four injuries suffered by the child J. She had little detail to give and so most of her evidence was superseded by documentary evidence that came to light later.
82.	Sarah Hogan (team manager) – She is the team manager, whose statement at C235 related to whether the paternal cousin, N, should continue to care for D in November 2016. Following the removal of D from her, N has dropped out of the picture and has played no part in this hearing. Ms Hogan was also cross examined in relation to PA with whom she had also had involvement as part of these proceedings. She said that she would accept that PA has not visited the father in prison but said that PA remains strongly allied to her brother. 
83.	Ms Hogan suggested that, at the time that D was living with the father in 2016, PA should have taken the opportunity to cut herself off from the father and must have known that the father was still involved with drugs. As the case developed that seemingly harsh suggestion developed and gathered weight. The key points that were being made were these:
i)	After the father left drugs paraphernalia in PA’s house in October 2016 leading to her arrest and interviewing by the police in early 2016, why did PA allow her brother into her house at a time when she was caring for her own two children. In my opinion the Local Authority made a very strong and valid point about this. If PA were not to have been so enmeshed with her brother she would surely not have allowed him back into her house after he had behaved in that way towards her. What sensible parent would allow a brother back into her house in those circumstances? By the end of the case PA accepted the point.
ii)	PA must have been aware of the father’s criminal activities. By the end of the case PA said that she knew that he took drugs and turned a blind eye to his other criminal activity.
84.	Julia Denny – She is the independent social worker who reported on the father and, now more importantly, on PA – the report relating to PA is at C243 and the report relating to the father is at E83. She said that PA is raising her own two children without any significant involvement from statutory agencies but that it is important to differentiate between PA’s two children and D since D raises other issues. She gave evidence about those issues, the relevant parts of which I have incorporated above.
85.	A specific point was put to her by Ms Knowles. Could not PA receive education and guidance about the risk that the father posed to D in a way that would significantly mitigate the risk? Ms Denny said that PA does have a very strong and protective attitude to her family and that there would need to be a lot of work done to ensure that a placement with PA was safe.  She said that the work would have to be undertaken by the Local Authority but PA has a profound distrust of the Local Authority. Any work with PA would therefore start from a difficult position and would be rendered even more difficult by the distrust that the rest of the family has for the Local Authority. Ms Denny said that the father is a very strong character and that PA is very fond of him, so it would be very difficult for PA to assert herself over her brother if D were to be living with her. 
86.	In relation to PA’s wish to care for D she said: ‘I think that this is very finely balanced…There is a lot of work that would need to be done’. For myself I do not regard the issue to be finely balanced as will already be apparent. While there are unresolved issues of fact and competing arguments in court it may be that a commentator will perceive the outcome to be finely balanced. But here, once the facts have become clear, I do not think that the issues of whether PA can care for D are finely balanced at all. They require hard headed analysis of the contentions relating to PA and once that analysis has been done the position becomes very clear, in my opinion. PA could not offer D safe care.
87.	The mother – She gave evidence politely and thoughtfully. I have incorporated the key points of her evidence in what I have set out above. As I said to the mother directly, I have nothing but sympathy for her.
88.	The father – I have already incorporated the main points of his evidence in what I have said above. However, I want to refer to the following specific points that arose from it:
i)	He said that, during their relationship, the mother would sometimes have a bit to drink and there would be arguments; however, he said, there was never any violence. The mother’s evidence was that there was never any serious violence but there was pushing and shoving. I accept that I have not been referred to any evidence of repeated police call-outs or injuries to the mother. I therefore accept the mother’s evidence and do so in preference to that of the father. 
ii)	He said that he thinks that D should stay with PA. He said that it is obvious that the mother loves D but she has to keep off the drugs and ‘we can’t take the risk of placing D with her’.
iii)	He said he understands the concerns about his involvement with drugs and he understands the risks that his lifestyle poses for D. I therefore asked him what those risks were. He said that he could have got robbed and people could have come after him for money. He did not mention the risks to D of living in a household where there are Class A drugs nor did he mention the lack of responsibility that he would be showing to his child by involving himself in that lifestyle – normalising drug taking, associating with other drug takers and making his lifestyle appear acceptable to a young child. 
iv)	As to the paraphernalia found in PAs property on 8th October [G570], he accepted they were his and said that PA did not have anything to do with them. He then went on to give a manifestly untruthful account of why he left the items in her house.  He said that he had taken the paraphernalia to someone else’s house by foot that day. He watched the other person use them, that is weighing and pressing drugs with them, and he then walked back to his sister’s house with them. He then took the items into her house and hid them there while she was on the phone speaking to a sister in the USA. He then drove off in his car with drugs in his possession. The obvious point that he was asked was this: ‘Your flat is just across the road from your sister’s house. Why did you not leave the paraphernalia there?’ He had no credible answer to that question. The only explanation is that he used his sister’s house as a safe-house – he hid some of the items on top of a kitchen cupboard, the pressing plates in a kitchen cupboard under the sink and the £400 upstairs next to some of his jewellery which he also left at her house. By the end of the case PA said that she realised the seriousness of what he had done and how he had used her. The father suggested that PA would have gone ‘mad’ if she had known what he was doing; if that is true, and I am in no position to say whether it is, then it merely adds to the irresponsibility of his actions.
v)	He also said that this was not the first time that he had left paraphernalia at PA’s house and said that there was another occasion. I am quite unable to rely on a word the father said and could not possibly rely on his assertion that he only behaved in this way twice. Why should he have done so only twice, given the duration of his involvement in drugs?
vi)	He said he is a tough man and a controlling man. He accepts that he has put his sister through hell and put her at risk, leading to her being arrested. I agree with all that. He said that he had learnt his lesson; I do not agree with that - there is no evidence to support it beyond his mere assertion.
vii)	He accepted that he was taking drugs at the time that he was caring for D as the Lextox tests show. He said he was getting the drugs from dealers that he knew, sometimes paying, sometimes not. 
viii)	He accepted that he was having a relationship with the mother when D was with him and, initially, said that he agreed that he was putting D at risk by continuing a relationship with M at the time given the condition that she was in. He then said that, when he went to see the mother, he left D with his sister PA but did not tell his sister that he was going to see her. None of that was reliable evidence.  
ix)	He accepted that he had lied to the court and to the Local Authority about the continuation of his relationship with the mother. In his statement at A23 he had said that he had been seeing the mother until February 2016; that was not true because he was seeing her after that. He accepted that he gave a false account to the social worker about his relationship with the mother and that he was untruthful in his statement at page C118e when he said; ‘in the relation to the other allegations of me being in contact with M by telephone etc this is completely fabricated….I am not in a relationship with M and I do not appreciate the Local Authority trying to make up evidence to suggest this’. At A47 the father said in January 2017: ‘the father is not in a relationship with M and was not in a relationship with her until he went to prison as has been suggested…It is correct that M is currently living in the father’s flat as he is in prison’; he was in a relationship with her until he went to prison. 
x)	On 3rd August 2016, the day when police came to his flat as described at C104 and found the mother there, he said that he had allowed the mother into the flat to collect some things that she had stored there. He said that he did not know she had drugs on her. He was referred to the photograph at C111 which shows the mother’s clothes on the bed in his one bedroom flat. As on other issues I could not rely on anything that this father said and I think it highly improbable that the mother was simply there to collect some belongings – if she was, why was her loose clothing on his bed [C111]?
89.	PA – In addition to matters arising from her evidence that I have already mentioned I want to refer to the following specific points:
i)	She said that she is a good mum and has cared for her own children well. I have no reason to doubt that. However, I accept that the issues relating to D are very different to any issues relating to her children. 
ii)	She said that she knew that her brother, the father, had a big red press in his flat, which she visited, but did not ask ‘what is that?’; she said that she did not want to ask the question. When I asked her why she did not want to ask the question she did not give a satisfactory answer at all – she said that she thought it might be connected with crime but she did not know what sort of criminal activity.  She knew about the metal gate across the door and said her brother said that it was to prevent the police coming into his flat – she said that she believed her brother when he told her that. She said that she did not think that the metal gate was there to prevent other criminals entering the flat; I do not believe that. 
iii)	She sought to suggest that she was naïve about the father’s involvement with drugs and did not know the extent of it. I do not believe her. Their relationship is very proximate both emotionally and geographically, the signs of his drug involvement were obvious from his flat (which she did visit) and his way of life was unexplained by anything lawful.
iv)	She said that she knew that the mother was taking drugs and was drinking but sought to suggest that she was unaware of the extent of the mother’s difficulties despite the fact that, in February, D was taken from the mother’s care by the father and despite the fact that PA was seeing her brother regularly and was also seeing D regularly. I found her evidence wholly unsatisfactory and untruthful. Of course she knew what the problems were and, of course, her brother told her.
v)	She accepted that she was too trusting of her cousin in relation to the injuries suffered by J.
90.	Analysis of options - I now want to analyse the options in relation to each of the children, using the language of the relevant statutory checklists as I do so.
91.	As to A, the mother herself accepts that she cannot care for her. I accept that A is of an age where her wishes to go back home are important and clear – she certainly does not wish to be in care. However, despite her age and outward appearance, I do not think that it would be in her interests for her expressed wishes to dominate the welfare analysis relating to her. In fact, as matters stand, there is no other place for her to be save in care since there are no competing calls to that. But she also needs some sort of structure and boundaries to her life in a way that she did not have when living at home. 
92.	A needs to be protected from the neglect that she experienced at home and also needs to be helped to avoid the criminal and rebellious life that she was living. She also needs to fulfil her educational ability in a way that she was not doing before. A change in her circumstances whereby she becomes a child subject to a full care order will be bound to have an impact on her because it will be contrary to her wishes. However, it is definitely a necessary and proportionate response to her background. If a care order were not to be made there is every reason to think that she would revert to how she was in her mother’s care; however now, as a physically mature teenager she would be at very particular risk of harm. Both of her parents accept that they do not have the capability to care for her. The only option for her that is consistent with her welfare is a care order. 
93.	As to B and C, there are no family adults who suggest that they are in a position to care for them. The options for them are fostering or twin tracking of adoption and fostering as proposed by the guardian and the Local Authority.  That balance has to be considered on the basis that there is no likelihood that the mother would be able to offer them a home in the short or medium term future – and on the basis that it is not possible to predict the long-term.
94.	Their wishes and feelings are difficult to ascertain with any reliability, as I have said. I accept that, on the one hand, they have a memory of the neglect that they suffered when living with the mother and wish to avoid experiencing it again while, on the other hand, recognising her as their mother.
95.	However, in my opinion, it is not difficult to perceive their needs. B and C both need security and permanence, as I have stated above. Those, in my opinion, are their dominant needs. They are going to have to live outside the natural family and it is essential that, if possible, they should know a full family life in which they are fully integrated. Fostering cannot offer them that. If they are to have confidence in their carers and have the chance to develop into secure adults, they need to have certainty and a sense of belonging that only adoption could provide. They are bound to suffer the sense of loss that adoption would bring but that sense of loss is one with which they will have the help of the adopters, if adopters can be found, and will also have professional help. In any event, far more emotional harmful to them would be the insecurity of fostering.
96.	If they become adopted children they will suffer the losses of their family to which I have referred throughout their lives, that is, even as adults. But they will also be offered security and permanence and the benefits, if achievable, clearly outweigh the detriments.
97.	B is late for adoption and therefore I am not approaching this judgment on the basis that there is certainty that an adoptive placement could be found. However I think that there is at least a reasonable chance that one will be found and that B should be given the opportunity of this. I also think that, given C’s age, an adoptive placement may be easier to find and that the two siblings should be given the same chances together. Their background is of children who have a profound need for security and B, in particular, is sufficiently insightful to be aware of what has happened to her.
98.	The children have suffered significant harm in the manner that I have already stated. In foster care the risk would be that they would continue to be exposed to the instability of their mother and the father of C through inconsistent involvement and also through witnessing how the mother and C’s father were living. There would also be the risk that the children would not settle in foster care if they were having contact with a mother that they would know wishes to care for them.
99.	B and C have particular relationships with the mother, their siblings and their maternal grandparents. The wishes and feelings of their relatives is to maintain contact with them but none of their relatives could offer them a secure environment. Although those relationships are important to them the more important feature for B and C is that they should have a secure childhood within a family where they have a permanent place.
100.	In my opinion, if an adoptive placement can be found for B and C together then it clearly represents the best solution for them both. I think that their welfare demands that they be given the opportunity of such a placement. 
101.	I therefore dispense with the consent of the mother to the placement for adoption of the B and C on the basis that the welfare of each of the children so requires. I dispense similarly with the consent of C’s father. Insofar as may be necessary I dispense with the consent of B’s father also (lest it should be revealed later that there is an identified father with parental responsibility).
102.	In relation to D I have already made it plain that it would be positively contrary to his welfare for him to be placed with PA for the reasons that I have given. I therefore reject the suggestion that any private law orders should be made in her favour in relation to D. 
103.	D cannot be placed with his father and the position of the mother is as above in the short, medium and long term. As between the options of fostering and adoption the same factors apply to D as apply to B and C save that, by reason of his age, he has a greater opportunity to be placed for adoption.  I do not envisage that there would be difficulty in finding adopters for him. His minority will continue for another 14 ½ years and it would not be in his interests to be fostered for that length of time. He needs the security of adoption and will benefit considerably from being an adopted person throughout is life. He has suffered particular and additional harm through the number of moves that he has experienced over the past year and now needs to be settled in one permanent place as soon as possible. Like B and C he cannot wait to see if the mother does achieve rehabilitation in the long-term.
104.	That being so I dispense with the consent of the mother and of the father to the placement of D for adoption. 
105.	Conclusion – In relation to A, I make a care order. In relation to B, C and D I make placement orders, having dispensed with parental consent; I also make underlying care orders. I therefore approve the care plans that have been presented.
106.	Final words - I wish to end with these final words:
i)	I am very sorry indeed to be the one who has to cause so much pain to this mother by making those orders.
ii)	If, in later life, any of the younger children should read this judgment I would wish them to know that nothing that has happened to them is their fault. How could it be? Their mother loves them hugely but has just not be able to care for them in the way that she wants. She has had enormous difficulties in her own life and I hope that they will view her with the same sympathy that I do.
iii)	This case is a very clear example of the damage that drugs can do. People like this father are all too keen to profit from the drugs market but the damage that is done through drug distribution can be seen in the decimation of this family. What to some vulnerable or impressionable people may seem cool in their teens or early twenties leads to this dreadful type of picture in later life. I hope that there is sufficient education so that this type of potential ruination is known.
Stephen Wildblood QC.
27th February 2017.