Introduction
- In these
proceedings I am concerned for X and Y, both aged under five. Their mother
is M (“the mother”). She is Polish, having moved to the UK in 2012. The
identity of their fathers is unknown. At the outset of these proceedings
two men were made parties, it being believed they were the boys’ fathers,
but DNA testing proved neither was and they have been discharged as
parties. Declarations of non-parentage have been made to enable their
birth certificates to be rectified. The mother has been able to offer no
other suggestion as to who might be the boys’ fathers, being particularly
clear that she was certain about the identity of Y’s father and thought
the DNA test must be wrong. The local authority has employed an enquiry
agent to attempt to trace men whose names were known but without success. There
are members of the extended maternal family living in the UK including the
maternal grandparents and a maternal uncle.
- Both X and Y
are subject to interim care orders in favour of the local authority and
have been since 21 September 2017, the local authority’s application for a
care order having been made earlier that month. The boys are placed
together in foster care and have been at the same placement throughout
proceedings. The boys have supervised contact with their mother but the
frequency of that contact has fluctuated during the proceedings, owing to
her non-attendance. Currently she has contact once a fortnight.
- Within these
proceedings the mother has been assessed by the local authority and
alcohol testing carried out. There have also been a number of assessments
of family members which have either been negative or the family member
decided not to proceed with the assessment. One realistic option though
seemed to be a couple who were extended family members and who live in
Poland. The local authority would have been happy to assess them but it
needed to be done in Poland so the Polish authorities carried out an
assessment. That was positive although did not contain sufficient
information for the local authority here to be satisfied the placement was
right and further investigations were made. There was a plan for the
couple to come to the UK to spend time with the children and be further
assessed. As a result of these plans the proceedings were delayed
significantly as it was important to know if there was any possibility of
these boys growing up in their birth family. Sadly, at the end of March
2018 the couple decided not to pursue care of the children and withdrew
from the process.
- At the final
review hearing the Polish Vice-Consul attended, the consul having been
kept up to date with proceedings as they had progressed. She indicated
that the Polish authorities would wish the matter to be transferred to be
heard in Poland and subsequently the mother made an application for
transfer under Article 15. It was agreed that that application if made
would be dealt with on the first two days of the hearing and the Polish
Consulate was allowed to intervene in the proceedings so representations
could be made in relation to transfer. For listing reasons, the case was
moved from my list to that of Parker J, and she heard the application for
transfer, refusing it on 12 June. I am informed by the advocates that the
reasons given included that this court could properly consider all the
options for the boys including placement in Poland, that this court could
deal with it most expeditiously, and that all witnesses are in this
country and except for the mother are English speaking. A decision was
then taken to transfer the balance of the hearing back to my list. On
Wednesday the mother failed to attend court, having not attended either of
the first two days either, and the case was heard in her absence. I heard
evidence from the social worker and guardian and the mother’s advocate had
the opportunity to cross-examine them. I am satisfied the mother was aware
the final hearing was taking place and it was her choice not to attend.
The Issues
and the Evidence
- In preparing
for this hearing I have read all the key documents in the bundle of papers
provided to me in this matter and have considered an email sent by the
Polish central authority and an email from the Intercountry Adoption
Centre. I heard oral evidence from the social worker and guardian. It is
the case I know well, having been responsible for it throughout.
- The issues I
have had to decide are limited. That is because the mother, albeit only
last Friday, extremely late in these proceedings, conceded that threshold
was met. The parties were able to agree a form of words which set out the
situation at the beginning of these proceedings and reflects that the
children were at that time suffering and were at risk of suffering
significant harm. The man named in the threshold document, the man who was
believed to be Y’s father, has not given his consent to the wording but he
was a party when it was being discussed and knew the court would be asked
to approve the document or to decide on its truth in due course. In his
statement filed in these proceedings he admits a violent incident against the
mother and his conviction is a matter of record. The wording agreed
between the parties is set out in full at the end of this judgment. I am
satisfied that it is an accurate document, based on the evidence I have
read which has not been challenged.
- The only
decision I have therefore had to make relates to the boys’ welfare, to
decide what the plan should be for their future. The local authority,
supported by the guardian, say that having considered all options the only
possible outcome for these boys is one of adoption. I am invited to make
final care orders, approving a plan of adoption, and to make placement
orders, dispensing with the mother’s consent.
- The local authority’s
care plan for both children is permanence through adoption. The intention
is that the children will be placed in a joint adoptive placement,
everyone agreeing without a shadow of doubt these boys are closely
attached and need to live together. Contact between the boys and their
mother will be gradually reduced, until by August contact
will occur once per month. The maternal grandparents or the uncle will be
able to attend this contact with the mother, if they wish to see the
children. A final contact will take place once an adoptive placement is
identified.
9. The local authority at
the outset of this case sought to assess the mother. The concerns which had led
to proceedings being begun related to the mother’s lifestyle including her
misuse of alcohol. The mother came to the UK in 2012, moving to Leeds in May
2015 following a serious incident of violence between herself and her then
partner when X was present. Then in May 2017 the police were called to a
serious incident of domestic violence between the mother and her subsequent
partner, Z, an incident in relation to which S was subsequently found guilty of
a s39 assault on the mother. The mother and S give different accounts of what
happened but it is accepted there the children were exposed to a serious
incident of domestic abuse including physical violence. Z was bailed with a
condition not to live at the home where the mother and children lived.
10. Days later the social worker
visited the home to find the mother had locked herself and the children in. When
police assisted to gain entry, S was found in the home in breach of his bail
conditions. The mother’s presentation suggested that she had been drinking and
when tested she was found to be many times over the legal driving limit. She
was arrested for child neglect, Y being severely dehydrated, cold and
unresponsive, the house was dirty and cluttered and the children had no clean
clothes. She ultimately received a conditional caution for child neglect, a condition
being that that she work with the local authority. However, within a week she
moved back in with Z without informing the local authority. The social worker
advised her it was not safe for the children to live with him and the home was
not suitable for the children. A few days later she did move back in with the
maternal grandparents.
11. About a month later the social
worker undertook a home visit to the children at the grandparents’ home and was
initially unable to gain entry. When she returned with police the mother was
found to be intoxicated and unable to care for the children, detail about the
situation being in the police evidence. The children were unclean and unkempt and
the home condition presented a clear risk of harm to the children. The mother was
arrested and the children removed pursuant to police protective powers, the mother
later agreeing to them being accommodated by the local authority. Child
protection medical examinations took place in next day and a number of bruises
were found on the children, which the local authority says were the result of
inadequate supervision. Those concerns led these proceedings beginning.
12. During these proceedings, the
mother was tested for alcohol consumption, including using a SCRAM bracelet,
the tests being undertaken between September and November 2017. The initial
results appeared to indicate that the mother was abstaining from alcohol, but
sadly that was not maintained. The mother said she would engage with substance
misuse support but did not do so at that time, despite being assisted to make
initial contact in October. Prior to October there were other hopeful signs,
the mother’s contact with the boys being largely positive as well. However, in
November the mother missed over half her contact
sessions. The SCRAM bracelet results indicate binge-drinking episodes during
this period, multiple occasions of high level and low level drinking in
November and one occasion when the bracelet was unable to take a reading but
subsequently alcohol was detected, a ‘tamper incident’. The mother challenged
the test results and clarification was sought from the testing company
regarding the accuracy of the SCRAM bracelet was sought. The company confirmed
that the system is set up to give the benefit of the doubt to the wearer.
13. Alongside the testing, there was
also an assessment of the mother carried out by the local authority, the mother
attending two thirds of the sessions. The mother was not consistent in what she
reported to the social worker, and her accounts differed from those of Z, but
it was clear from the assessment that the children were living in a home where
they were repeatedly exposed to the volatile relationship between the mother and
Z and their alcohol abuse. The social worker in her oral evidence was clear
that the mother still did not see what the impact would be on the children of
this situation. It is known she has lived in the same house as Z throughout
these proceedings, even on her own evidence until about a month ago, but she
does not see that this should be an issue.
14. In relation to her alcohol use, the
mother consistently said that her consumption of alcohol was low, in no way a
level which could account for the alcohol test results. The local authority was
concerned that the mother had not engaged with services which could support her
in ceasing to binge drink, or indeed with avoiding entering a further violent
relationship. The mother failed to attend three start appointments with the
substance misuse agency, only eventually attending on the fourth occasion. The
local authority accepts that agency quite quickly ceased to work with the
mother, but makes the point that that was on the basis her own self reporting.
Enquiries were made by the social worker of the substance misuse worker, only
to learn that he was not aware of the history including the SCRAM results. The
mother’s attendance at a local project working with young women who had been in
abusive relationships was also poor.
15. There have also been difficulties
in the mother attending contact regularly. Contact was initially twice a week
but reduced to weekly in December due to her lack of regular attendance. After
that reduction the
mother gave a commitment to attend regularly and it was increased to twice per
week at the end of January 2018. Again though, she did not attend regularly and
it was reduced back to once per week in March 2018. From November, the mother
was asked to text or call the contact team to confirm she would be attending
contact. When contact was reduced in March 2018 she was surprised, saying that
she contacted the team when she was coming and does not contact them when she was
not. She did not appear to understand why seeing her children should not be considered
optional. Since then she has attended contact once every two weeks. The local
authority would say that the mother’s inability to commit to regular contact
with her children is indicative of a chaotic lifestyle, an inability to
prioritise her children’s needs and a failure to understand the emotional
impact of her behaviour on the children.
16. I should refer to one incident of
contact, the details of which are in dispute. On 27 March 2018 the local
authority says the mother attended contact at 10 o’clock in the morning,
alongside her mother, smelling of alcohol. A statement was filed by the contact
supervisor, attaching to it her notes of contact. She says within the first
five minutes she could smell alcohol in the contact room but did not feel she could
stop contact as the boys would have been distressed. The interpreter present
commented on this to the social worker, saying the smell was stronger as the
mother passed her. The interpreter said she was struggling to understand what
the mother and grandmother were saying, their speech being slow and slurred.
Contact continued and there were no incidents of concern. At the end of contact
the supervisor asked the mother and grandmother if they had been drinking, and
the mother looked away and then both said no. The supervisor observed that she
had supervised this family’s contact on multiple occasions and the mother
presented as louder than usual.
17. The local authority’s final
evidence acknowledged positives in relation to the mother. When she attends
contact, there is a warm relationship with the children and there are clearly
times when she has been able to meet their needs. However, given that she has
not been able to demonstrate or make any changes in respect of the concerns
around her alcohol use and volatile relationships, the social worker said that
the boys would still be a significant risk of neglect and harm if they were
living with their mother.
18. Consideration was given to whether
the mother could care for the children with any professional or family support
but the point was made that this was the position prior to proceedings being
issued and the mother did not demonstrate she could be trusted. She had not
engaged with agencies that would provide her with support, including around
alcohol misuse and domestic abuse, and that meant one could not be confident
that change could be achieved and maintained in the future. The local authority
would say there is no realistic plan which could be put in place to manage the
risks of harm to the children in the mother’s care.
19. The local authority has considered
foster care as a long-term option for the children in the UK or in Poland, it
being known the Polish authorities have identified potential foster carers
there, but concludes that the children’s ages, life experiences and emotional
needs demand a level of certainty and permanence that is less likely to be
achieved via long term foster care. The children it is said also need lives
that are free from state interference rather than growing up as ‘looked after children’
with all that that entails. Whilst long-term foster care would permit an
ongoing direct relationship between the children and their mother, it is not
accepted that this outweighs the detriments of long term foster care. The local
authority is also conscious the mother has not been able to commit to contact
even over the life of these proceedings.
- The local
authority therefore says that the children’s welfare throughout their
lives can only be met by them being placed for adoption. The
orders sought are proportionate and necessary to meet the welfare needs of
the children. The local authority recognises if the plan of adoption is
endorsed the loss to the children of their relationship with their mother
throughout their lives. The local authority says that this loss is
outweighed by the risk to their physical and emotional safety in their mother’s
care. Whilst an adoptive placement will not provide the opportunity for
the children to maintain a link with their birth mother, life story work
and indirect contact will be offered to provide emotional support to the
children with this loss. An adoptive placement will be found for the
children that will meet all other of their welfare needs to ensure their
emotional and physical wellbeing now and throughout their lives.
- In terms of
what kind of adoptive placement would best meet the needs of the boys, the
social worker provided a statement setting out what she thinks the boys
need from their carers. She acknowledges that those needs include their
cultural heritage, both children being Polish. X’s first language when he
entered foster carer was Polish, although both children now speak English
as their first language. The Polish authorities have indicated there
would be potential adopters for the boys in that country. The local authority
has made it known that if placement orders are made then it would
willingly consider prospective adopters living in Poland, in accordance
with The Hague Convention, and I have seen email correspondence in this
regard. The adoption agency would look at the suitability of any
prospective adopter from Poland to be matched to the children, those
considerations being no different to considering a match for a prospective
adopter within the UK. In terms of looking for potential adopters in the
UK, the local authority will seek to identify adopters who
have either a family link to Poland or are motivated and willing to learn
about Polish cultures or traditions in order to best meet the children’s
needs.
- The guardian supports the local authority’s analysis of the
options for the children. She has been forced to rely on the assessment of
others in relation to the mother as the mother has not engaged with her at
all. She agrees that the mother has continued to place her own needs over
and above the needs of the boys and if the boys were returned to her care
they would again be exposed to a risk of significant harm. Having done her
own balancing exercise of all the children’s needs, she too concludes that
only adoption can meet all the needs of the children. She too agrees that
given the age of the boys foster care would not be appropriate for them,
whilst acknowledging this will lose them a relationship with their birth
family.
- The mother failed to attend the final hearing so I have not heard
from her and her engagement in these proceedings has been inconsistent.
She never filed an initial statement and her final statement was filed
just one or two working days before the final hearing, long after it
should have been. In her statement she says she wishes to have the boys
back in her care. She says she does not have a problem with alcohol,
although accepts that she “drank to excess on a couple of occasions”
whilst wearing the SCRAM bracelet. She said this was due to her being
stressed and upset at being apart from the children who she misses
terribly. She says her work with the substance misuse agency has enabled
her to manage her drinking and she does not believe she will use alcohol
to excess in the future. She appends to her statement a letter from the substance
misuse worker, confirming she attended on three occasions, did not smell
alcohol when she was present, and he was positive about her ability not to
misuse alcohol in future. She had told him about a month before he wrote
that that she might be interested in a recovery programme they ran so he
was going to refer her to that, but four weeks later she had not engaged
with that programme.
- The mother accepted she did not attend all the sessions at
domestic abuse programme but again said she felt she had learned enough to
assure the court she would not get involved in any abusive relationships
in the future. She accepted Z said lived with her and her parents until
about a month ago but says they did not see much of each other.
- In relation to non-attendance at contact, she said: “I accept I
have not attended contact reliably and I regret the upset this will have
caused my children…. If I have missed contact it is because I have had a
medical appointment.” [B59] She denied ever having attended contact under
the influence of alcohol.
- The mother said she would work with professionals in order to
have her children home with her and would attend groups which was felt
would benefit her and the children.
- If the children could not be placed with her, the mother said
she did not wish them to be adopted in the UK, saying she felt not being
able to see her and her family would be distressing to them. She would
want them to be able to speak Polish throughout their lives as their first
language ideally and hence wanted them to be living with a Polish family.
She would therefore prefer the children to be in foster care or adopted in
Poland if they were not with her. She would want to return to Poland if
her children were there so she could see them as often as possible.
Findings on
matters in dispute
- In family
proceedings, as in other civil proceedings, the burden of proving a fact
rests on the person who asserts it. The standard of proof is the
balance of probabilities, the question being is it more likely than not that the alleged event occurred.
Neither the seriousness of the allegation nor the seriousness of the
consequences alters this.
- I have
considered the contact session which took place on 27 March when it is
said the mother attended smelling of alcohol. Ms Beaumont on the mother’s
behalf and in the absence of her client urged me against this. She made
the observations that it was only a smell of alcohol and there was no
testing of the mother and that the contact was allowed to progress and
seemed to be a positive experience for the boys. I am conscious the mother
failed to attend to give any evidence on this matter and that she has not
been honest about her alcohol consumption in the past. On the evidence of
the contact worker, recording the observations of the interpreter as well,
I do find that the mother attended contact smelling of alcohol.
Decision
- I now turn to
consider what orders if any are in the best interests of X and Y. I start
very clearly from the position that, wherever possible, children should be
brought up by their natural parents and if not by other members of their
family. The state should not interfere in family life so as to separate
children from their families unless it has been demonstrated to be both
necessary and proportionate and that no other less radical form of order
would achieve the essential aim of promoting their welfare. In Re B
[2013] UKSC 33 the Supreme Court emphasised this, reminding us such orders
are “very extreme”, and should only be made when “necessary” for the
protection of the child’s interests, “when nothing else will do”. The
court “must never lose sight of the fact that (the child’s) interests
include being brought up by her natural family, ideally her parents, or at
least one of them” and adoption “should only be contemplated as a last
resort”.
- It is not for
the court to look for a better placement for a child; social engineering
is not permitted. In YC v United Kingdom [2012] 55 EHRR 33 it was
said : “Family ties may only be severed in very exceptional circumstances
and….everything must be done to preserve personal relations and, where
appropriate, to ‘rebuild’ the family. It is not enough to show that a
child could be placed in a more beneficial environment for his
upbringing.”
- I have looked
again at the words of the President in Re B-S (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 1146 as well as the judgments in Re B (supra) and reminded
myself of the importance of addressing my mind to all the options for
these children, taking into account the assistance and support which the
authorities or others would offer.
- In reaching my
decision I have taken into account that the welfare of X and Y throughout
their lives is my paramount consideration and also the need to make the
least interventionist order possible. I have to consider the Article 8
rights of the adults and the children as any decision I make today will
inevitably involve an interference with the right to respect to family
life. I am very conscious that any orders I go on to make must be in
accordance with law, necessary for the protection of the children’s rights
and be proportionate.
- A placement
order is sought by the local authority in respect of X and Y. The court
cannot make a placement order unless the parent has consented or the court
is satisfied that the parents’ consent should be dispensed with. A court
cannot dispense with a parent’s consent unless either the parent cannot be
found, or lacks capacity to give consent, or the welfare of the child
“requires” consent to be dispensed with. In that context I am conscious
that “requires” means what is demanded rather than what is merely
optional.
- The
central question I have to ask myself is whether X and Y should be
returned to their mother’s care, with or without statutory orders; whether
they should be placed in long term foster care; or whether they should be
adopted. McFarlane LJ in Re G [2013] EWCA Civ 965 said
“What is required is a balancing exercise in which each option is
evaluated to the degree of detail necessary to analyse and weigh its own
internal positives and negatives and each option is then compared, side by
side, against the competing option or options.” In addressing this task, I
have considered all the points in the welfare checklists contained in both
the Children Act 1989 and the Adoption and Children Act 2002, and
propose to consider the evidence in the light of those factors.
- The first factor I am going to address is the boys’ particular
needs, physical,
emotional and educational, alongside their age, sex, background and any other
relevant characteristics. It is self-evident that they have all the needs
of any small child, to be kept safe and secure by those bringing them up.
They need somebody who is emotionally available to them on a consistent
basis. They need someone alert to difficulties they may present because of
the problems in their early life. X in particular has delayed speech and
language development, which has improved it seems due to the quality of
care he has been getting and consistency of approach between home and
nursery, but adopters will need to continue this. The social worker also
identifies that these boys may benefit from having two carers given the
boys will have differing needs and need a high level of attention.
- I am of course
acutely conscious that these boys are Polish by heritage and were in
effect growing up in a Polish world, albeit in the UK, prior to these
proceedings beginning. The social worker was clear that she was committed
to finding a family who would meet all of the children’s needs including
their cultural and language needs. In her final statement she says the
local authority would initially consider carers who are Polish in origin
and those who have a family connection or have lived in Poland for a
considerable amount of time. A search nationally shows there are three
families who are Polish speaking and who would consider a sibling set of
two. Equally the social worker was very open to assessing any family
identified in Poland, initially by Skype as would be normal in a case such
as this, and if adopters in Poland were felt to be the best match with the
boys the local authority would pursue a Hague Convention adoption. The
social worker was firm in her views though that, whilst entirely accepting
the importance of culture and heritage for these boys, she would not
prioritise that over and above the boys’ other needs as it was important
to find somebody who would meet all of their needs if possible.
- Next, I turn to look at any harm within the meaning of the
Children Act 1989 which the boys have suffered or are at risk of suffering.
The mother conceded that at the beginning of these proceedings the boys
had suffered and were at risk of suffering significant harm, that being
more than made out on the evidence. She does not accept however they would
be at risk of suffering significant harm now were they to be back in her
care. The mother’s case seems to be she has done some of work on her
issues, enough for her to know what is needed, and that therefore I can be
confident these problems would not arise again. Sadly, I do not share her
optimism. She has not engaged properly either in work around her alcohol
misuse nor around domestic abuse. Serious domestic abuse has been present
in her last two relationships and there is a likelihood therefore it may
be a feature in future relationships. There is no evidence that she
understands why this would be harmful to her children. And there is
nothing to suggest she would not continue to binge drink. The work with
the substance misuse agency cannot reassure me as she told them she did
not have a problem and she was discharged, meaning nothing in terms of
whether she has learned her lessons and changed.
- I acknowledge that long-term separation of the boys from their
mother brings the risk of emotional harm. X in particular has a greater
knowledge of his mother and it is hard to conceive of how a young child
makes sense at the absence of a parent from his life. However, that harm
can be ameliorated by work being done with him at an age-appropriate
level, and the same for Y.
- If I look at how capable the mother is of meeting the boys’ needs,
I have already addressed this to some extent above. She may well have the
capacity to give good enough care when she is not drinking and not in a
violent relationship but I cannot be sure she will not return to that
situation. On her own evidence, she binge drinks when stressed, as that
was her explanation for drinking last autumn. I know nothing though about
what causes her stress, but we know it includes when she has care of her
children as that was the situation last summer before the boys were
removed. I am not satisfied she could meet the boys’ needs, nor can I be
confident she would engage with services who could assist her in this
given her track record.
- I know that carers identified by the local authority, whether here
or in Poland, would have been both assessed and trained to ensure that
they can meet the children’s needs and the matching process will ensure
carers who are able to meet the needs of these particular boys can be
found.
- I am very
aware that the boys are going to have a change in their circumstances,
whatever decision I make, be that to return to their mother or to move to
foster care or adoptive parents. That is going to be hard for them to
understand but I know the social worker will ensure the boys are prepared
for that, whatever the move might be.
- It is very important that
I consider the likely effect on the boys throughout their lives of having
ceased to be a member of his original family and becoming adopted
children. Alongside that I must consider the relationship the boys have
with their mother and their extended family. If I decide they should not
return to their mother than their future lives will be immeasurably
different, as is the case for any children in this situation. There is the
added complication here of the children’s heritage which I am clear is
very important, whilst not being a pre-eminent factor. As I have said
earlier in this judgment, the boys were growing up in a Polish family in
this country and their heritage, their language, their culture, should be
maintained if at all possible. From the evidence I have though, if the
boys cannot return home then all the alternatives have the potential, if
not a guarantee, for being culturally appropriate.
- I do of course
acknowledge that if the boys are adopted they will lose a real
relationship with their mother, their grandparents, their uncle, and also
the potential maybe for a relationship with their fathers if the mother
were able to identify those persons. Their relationship with their mother
has been significantly lessened by her inconsistent attendance at contact
but that does not mean the boys will not feel its loss. I have to balance
that though against the meeting of all the boys’ other needs and in this
case, important though that relationship is, it cannot outweigh the other
considerations.
- Finally,
I am required to consider the ascertainable wishes and feelings of the children concerned
regarding the decision, considered in the light of their age and
understanding. In this case the reality is that the boys are too young for
them to have any wishes as to their future. I acknowledge it can be
assumed a child would want to live in their birth family if that were
safely possible.
- So, I
turn to look at the options available to me. The first is for the boys to
return to their mother’s care. It follows inevitably from what I have said
above that this option is not attractive. The boys’ needs would be met no
better than they were last summer and they would continue to be at risk of
experiencing harm, most particularly when their mother was drinking or
when in a violent relationship. If living with her they would of course be
growing up in the culture they were born into, would be speaking Polish at
home, and would have an uncomplicated situation in terms of their family
structure.
- I have
thought carefully about the boys being placed in a foster placement in
Poland, where they would have their practical needs met, including their
cultural needs, and would have the potential for a relationship with their
mother, depending on where she was and upon the views of the Polish
authorities. I am conscious thought we are here talking about children who
are very young, both under four. They need to have the most normal home
life possible, to have security and dependable carers for the whole of
their childhoods and beyond. Children in foster care, certainly in this
country, have far less guarantee of a settled life than children who are
adopted. Statistics are worrying in terms of how children move between
placements and how they achieve less well. These children are young enough
to have a chance of a single permanent placement for the rest of their
lives, a family who they would be part of forever, and that is hugely
important.
- The
final option to consider is that of adoption. In that scenario the
children would be safe and their practical needs would be met. They would
have a ‘forever family’, a secure and predictable future. There is every
hope that their cultural needs could be met in an adoptive placement, be
that in the UK or Poland from what is known about potential carers and I
am entirely satisfied that the local authority are open to both options.
It would mean the loss of family relationships but in this particular case
I am satisfied the children’s need for security and stability throughout
their childhoods outweigh that.
- I am conscious
that the making of an adoption order is draconian, indeed it is hard to
imagine an order that is more serious in its implications for a family,
but here I am satisfied it is necessary, that it is a proportionate order
in terms of protecting the children and balancing all their needs. So, having carried out the balancing exercise that
I must, I am satisfied that there is no realistic prospect of the boys
being returned safely to their mother’s care, and that their needs for
stability and permanence can only be met in an adoptive placement. I
am satisfied that the local authority’s final care plan for X and Y is
proportionate and (in the context of both s1(1) Children Act 1989 and
s1(2) Adoption and Children Act 2002) in their best welfare interests. I therefore
make a care order. I am also satisfied that X and Y’s welfare requires me
to dispense with the mother’s consent to placing them for adoption, the
word “require” here having the Strasbourg meaning of necessary, “the
connotation of the imperative”. I therefore make a placement order authorising
the local authority to place X and Y for adoption.
- There is one further direction I wish to make. I
think it is hugely important for children who are adopted that they have
information available to them, through their adoptive parents, so they can
make sense of their early life. This judgment, in setting out what I have
read and heard in court, gives at least a summary of that start. Whilst it
will be placed in an anonymised form in the public domain it is important
that it is easily available to those who will be bringing X and Y up. I
propose therefore to make a direction that this judgment must be released
by the Local Authority to X and Y’s adopters so that it is available to them
in future life; that release however is on the basis that it should not be
disclosed beyond them or any medical or therapeutic staff working with the
child or family. And if the boys are placed in Poland, I direct that the
local authority shall provide the adopters with a copy of this judgment
translated into Polish. It is very important therefore that the judgment
is passed on to the Adoption Team to give to the adopters. I have written
this not for the benefit of the adults but for the children and wish to be
sure it reaches them.
- Finally, I also make orders reserving any future
applications in respect of the boys to myself if available and for public
funding assessment for all the respondents in this matter. I hope that my
reasons as given are sufficient but if the advocates require any further
detail to be given I would ask them to let me know.
___________________________________________________________________
Schedule
of Threshold findings in satisfaction of the threshold criteria pursuant to
s
31(2) of the Children Act 1989
___________________________________________________________________
At the time the
local authority undertook protective measures X and Y were suffering and were
likely to suffer significant physical and emotional harm attributable to the
care given to them by their mother, namely:
1.
On
or before 21st August 2017 Y suffered significant physical harm;
(i)
0.5cm
x 0.5cm yellow, green bruise on right abdomen
(ii)
3cm
x 1.5cm brown/yellow bruise on right anterior thigh
(iii)
0.5cm
x 0.5cm yellow, green bruise on right abdomen
(iv)
0.7cm
x 0.7cm blue discolouration on left shoulder
(v)
0.5
cm x 0.5cm bruise on lateral right thigh
2.
The
harm detailed above at paragraph 1 was caused to Y whilst he was in the care of
his Mother and were the result of the parenting Y received falling below what
it is reasonable for him to receive, including;
(i)
Inadequate
supervision being provided to Y by the adults caring for them including Mother;
and
(ii)
Mother
being unable to provide any or any reasonable care to Y due to the effect on
her of substance misuse
3.
At
the time that Y suffered the physical harm detailed above at paragraph 1 by
reason of the facts at paragraph 2 X was likely to suffer significant physical
harm in the care of his Mother.
4.
As
at 21/08/17 X and Y were suffering and were likely to suffer significant
physical and emotional harm resulting from;
(i)
Direct
exposure to domestic abuse between the Mother and Z including; 09/05/17 Z
assaulted Mother in the presence of the children. Z received a 2 year
conditional discharge for that offence.
(ii)
Exposure
to the Mother’s abuse of alcohol and her inability at times of intoxication to
meet the needs of the children to a reasonable standard; specific incidents
relied upon include 15/05/17 and 21/08/17.
(iii)
The
chaotic lifestyle of the Mother. Incidents relied upon include placing her
relationship with Z above the children’s needs including having contact with Z
on 15/05/17 in breach of his bail conditions and returning to live with Z on
23/07/17 when she knew the relationship was violent and the home conditions at the
house were inadequate.
(iv)
Inadequate
supervision of the children by the Mother
(v)
An
unwillingness or inability of the Mother to maintain the children’s basic home
condition to a consistently good enough standard.
