[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges)
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges) >> BFC v R & P [2015] EWFC B42 (16 April 2015) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2015/B42.html Cite as: [2015] EWFC B42

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

In the Reading County Court

		13th April 2015 To 16th April 2015

Introduction

I am dealing with applications for care and placement orders in respect of AR aged 6 years and AP aged 17 months.

I have read all of the evidence contained in the Court Bundle and handed in through the course of this hearing, and heard from various witnesses.

Background

I think it is necessary to set out the background in some detail to explain the length of time that these proceedings have now taken and put my decision in its proper context. AR has been accommodated by the Local Authority since 23^rd May 2013 and AP since shortly after her birth in November 2013. VR is the father of AR. AP's father is believed to be AA. The Local Authority has made numerous attempts to contact AA to secure confirmation of AP's paternity and his involvement in these proceedings but he has not responded. He was personally served with notice of proceedings on 27^th November 2013 and also did not respond to that notice.

JP and VR are Latvian and have never been married to each other. AR was born in Latvia and VR was named on his Latvian birth certificate as his father. VR was joined as a party to these proceedings as it is not clear if his being named on the birth certificate confers parental responsibility upon him. DNA testing has confirmed that AR is VR's son.

JP met VR in around 2008 and became pregnant with AR in mid 2008. VR came to the UK to find work following the birth of AR in 2009. JP and AR joined VR in the UK in 2010. VR's two older children by his first wife also came to the UK in June 2010 to live with the parents and AR. JP alleges that VR began misusing drugs and alcohol while in the UK and was also violent towards her. JP says that she returned to Latvia in January 2011 with all 3 children but agreed to return in July when VR said that he would change. She alleges that nothing changed and that, as a consequence, she was re-housed with all 3 children in September 2012. VR's older children were apparently deported to Latvia in February 2013 and are living in the care of their paternal grandmother.

On 3^rd February 2013 JP was subjected to a serious assault by VR who had attended her home intoxicated. She sustained a broken nose and bruising to her eye. She did not report the assault to the Police. AR witnessed the incident. VR did not then see AR again until a one-off contact was arranged on 2^nd April 2015.

JP began a relationship with AA in or around February 2012. She reports that he was violent towards her and that he would drink 8-10 cans of beer a day.

Social Services have been involved with the family intermittently since May 2011 with concerns about the parents' alcohol misuse, domestic violence between the parents, poor home conditions and AR's health needs not being met. There were also reports of AR being left on his own whilst his parents were at work or AR being left with multiple carers who misused alcohol. On 7^th March 2013 AR was placed on the Child Protection Register under the category of neglect. A Child Protection Plan was put in place with an expectation that JP would adhere to the plan to ensure AR's safety and well-being. Concerns continued, however, in particular with regard to JP being under the influence of alcohol whilst caring for AR and leaving him with people whilst she was at work knowing that they also drank alcohol to excess.

On 22^nd May 2013 Children's Social Care received a referral from AR's nursery stating that he had been collected by a male who smelled strongly of alcohol. A home visit was undertaken and, when the social worker could not gain access to the property, the Police were called to undertake a welfare check. JP was telephoned on her mobile but no response was received. At approximately 5pm the Police eventually gained access to the property through an upstairs window. Two adults were found sleeping upstairs and were difficult to rouse. They were heavily intoxicated. AR was found downstairs asleep on the living room sofa. He was taken into Police protection.

A pre-proceedings meeting was held on 17^th June 2013. JP agreed to participate in a ten week parenting assessment to be undertaken by the allocated social worker. The assessment concluded that there was a significant gap in AR's need for stability, safety and a nurturing home environment and JP's ability to meet those needs. Despite support being offered for a number of months, JP had demonstrated an unwillingness to accept the concerns of the Local Authority and therefore lacked an ability to promote change.

Concerns that JP may be misusing alcohol continued and there were also further allegations of violent incidents. On 10^th August 2013 Police were called to an incident where JP and AA were found to be intoxicated. JP accused AA of assaulting her causing bruising to her neck. On 24^th August it was reported that JP was intoxicated and had become involved in a fight with another female, during which she was hit in the stomach.

Care proceedings in respect of AR commenced on 13^th September 2013 and an interim care order was granted in respect of him on 1^st October 2013. Since then AR has remained in the same foster placement.

Following AP's birth in November 2013, care proceedings were also commenced in respect of her. She was made subject to an interim care order on 22^nd November 2013 and she was placed in a separate foster placement to AR. The two sets of proceedings were consolidated and listed for a final hearing on 10-12^th March 2014. Up to this point the case had been before the Family Proceedings Court but was transferred to the County Court (as it then was) because the final hearing would exceed 3 days. HHJ Everall conducted further case management hearings in relation to the case. Hair strand testing for JP and VR was undertaken, as was a psychological assessment of JP by Dr Downs. Dr Downs provided a further report at the end of March 2014 in which she was more positive about JP's ability to resume the care of the children than in her first report, but she remained concerned that new patterns of behaviour by JP in relation to abstinence and nonviolent relationships needed to be established for about 12 months in order for there to be confidence in relation to the maintenance of change.

The matter came before HHJ Everall again on 30^th April 2014 when the matter was timetabled to an IRH/ Early Final Hearing on 19^th September 2014. He also directed that a report should be provided by JP's treating therapist Trudy Inge. Ms Inge's report was provided on 4^th July 2014 and concluded that JP was gaining insight in particular with regard to understanding and developing more healthy relationships.

In light of this apparently positive progress by JP, a comprehensive support package was put in place to include the Local Authority funding the therapy, providing parenting work for JP, assisting in securing suitable accommodation for her and the children and funding an interpreter for contact sessions and the therapy and the work she was doing with the alcohol support agency SMART and Women's Aid.

The Local Authority filed their final evidence late – it should have been filed on 2^nd July and was filed on 23^rd July. At this stage, given the positive progress of JP, the final care plan was for both children to be rehabilitated to their mother's care.

In the interim, on 16^th July 2014 JP was assaulted by a male partner/friend and sustained a serious head injury. The man was intoxicated at the time and refused to leave JP's home when she asked him to do so. JP had not informed the Local Authority that she was in a relationship; she did not seek medical attention or call the Police at the time of the incident; she was initially reluctant to provide the man's name. In addition, at contact on 17^th July 2014 and again on 29^th July 2014 it was noted that JP smelt of alcohol. She has subsequently accepted that she had been drinking vodka.

On 6^th October 2014 Dr Downs provided a further addendum report. She concluded that JP had to complete her therapy and engage with Women's Aid and that her therapy had to be fully completed before the children could be returned to her care.

On 12^th November 2014 the mater was restored for hearing at the request of the then Guardian who was concerned at the lack of progress towards the relisted final hearing on 8^th-11^th December 2014. The Local Authority conceded that it had been unwise to file and serve the final evidence in July when there had been a significant change of circumstances which ostensibly called into question the basis upon which rehabilitation was proposed. The matter was heard by me and I directed that the Local Authority file updating evidence, including a sibling attachment assessment. The matter remained listed on 26^th November 2014 for a further CMH. I vacated the final hearing but retained one day as a potential final hearing in the event of further delay by the Local Authority.

The sibling attachment found that there was no established relationship between the children and that the lack of attachment precluded the need for them to be placed together. The Local Authority was directed to file assessments of 3 family members in Latvia – those assessments to be carried out by the Latvia authorities. JP was directed to file and serve further hair strand test results. The case was timetabled to final hearing. A new allocated social worker, JB, took over following this hearing.

The IRH took place on 15^th March 2015. Placement Order applications were issued on 9^th March 2015.

Threshold

Threshold is now not in issue in this case. At court for this final hearing both parties confirmed that they accepted threshold on the basis of an amended threshold document which was filed first thing on 14^th April 2015, and which I will adopt for the purposes of this judgement. On the basis of that document I find that threshold is met in this case.

The agreement with regard to threshold is as follows:

FINAL AGREED THRESHOLD STATEMENT
1. The Mother and VR agree that at the children's respective relevant dates:

(i) AR was suffering physical and emotional harm and neglect and AP was at risk of suffering physical and emotional harm and neglect; and

(ii) there is a likelihood that they will continue to suffer such harm should they be cared for by either of their parents which is attributable to the care likely to be provided by them, not being what it is reasonable to expect a parent to provide.

The relevant date for establishing the threshold criteria in respect of AR is 22 May 2013; and

the relevant date for establishing threshold in respect of AP is 15 November 2013.

2. In respect of AR the following facts are agreed:

AR was suffering and is likely to suffer emotional harm and neglect as a result of:

i. Parental misuse of alcohol:

both JP and VR have consumed alcohol over a significant period, and on occasions to excess:

for example:

on 12 December 2012 the Mother was arrested on suspicion of being drunk in charge of a minor [H48];

on 09 August 2013 Police reported that JP was 5 months pregnant and highly intoxicated [H47]; and

on 24 August 2013 JP was intoxicated and became involved in a physical fight resulting in her being hit in the stomach [F153];

alcohol test reports dated 29 December 2014 in respect of JP concluded that the results were strongly suggestive of chronic excessive alcohol consumption over the period from approximately end August to end November 2014; and

drug and alcohol test results dated 8 April 2015 for VR are compatible with him having consumed alcohol excessively for the approximate period 24 December 2014 to 18 March 2015 and having used or been exposed to cocaine for the period 9 January to 18 March 2015.

ii. Domestic abuse:

AR has been exposed to incidents of domestic violence between his Parents: for example on 3 February 2013 he witnessed an incident between the Parents as a result of which VR was convicted of assault on the Mother on 15 March 2013; and

JP has stated that in August 2013 AA, the putative father of AP, assaulted her during her pregnancy with AP, causing bruising to her neck [F138].

iii. Failing to meet ARs' health needs:

AR has suffered from poor dental hygiene due to being given a diet high in sugar which has caused tooth decay. On 17 January 2013 he had to have 13 teeth removed [F70].

iv. AR being left with inappropriate carers:

on 22 May 2013 AR was removed from his home by the police following concerns that he had been left in the care of two adults who were heavily intoxicated and asleep at the home at 5.30pm [H42]; and

on 3 separate occasions in March 2013 AR was collected from nursery by adults who had smelt of alcohol [G106].

3. In respect of AP the following facts are agreed:

AP was at risk of suffering and is likely to suffer physical and emotional harm and neglect as a result of:

i. being exposed to the Mother's alcohol consumption during pregnancy:

on 9 August 2013 Police reported attending JP's address following an argument between her and a male. JP was reported as being intoxicated, aggressive and unco-operative [H47];

JP reported she was drinking two cans of beer a day during stressful time and one a day at non stressful times following the removal of AR from her care [F154];

on 24 August 2013 JP had consumed five bottles of beer and became involved in a fight during which she was punched in the stomach. JP was admitted to hospital [C53].

(ii) JP's failure to prioritise her unborn baby's needs by continuing to drink alcohol during pregnancy despite medical advice and becoming involved in physical altercations with other adults [F154].

(iii) It is agreed that the agreed facts outlined above in respect of AR amount to a likelihood of physical and emotional harm and neglect in respect of AP.

Dated 13 April 2015

Parties' Positions

The Local Authority seeks final care and placement orders for both of the children. The final care plans are for placement of the children together in an adoptive placement outside of the family. If a suitable placement for both children cannot be identified within 6 months, the children would remain in their current placements. They are concerned about the impact of delay if I were to adjourn the Placement Order applications as the Guardian and the parents ask.

Up to the commencement of this final hearing, JP opposed the final care plans and sought the return of the children to her care. She changed her position having seen the Guardians' previous and most recent reports at the commencement of this hearing and now accepts threshold and the making of final care orders. However, she does not accept the final care plans and asks that both children remain in their current separate foster placements where she accepts that they are being well cared for. She is clear that she would not be a disruptive influence to either of these placements. She asks, through her advocate, for the Placement Order applications to be adjourned.

VR has also changed his position since the filing of his final statement. He now accepts that AR cannot be returned to his care. He has come to the conclusion that it is in AR's best interests to remain in his current placement and believes that the appropriate order is Special Guardianship rather than an adoption order. He is seeking direct contact with AR, possibly three times a year. He also asks, through his advocate, that I adjourn the Placement Order applications and direct there should be a Special Guardianship Assessment of the current foster carers for AR.

The Guardian does not support the children returning to the care of their parents. She does not oppose the making of care orders but does take issue with the final care plans for placement of the children together in an adoptive placement. She would like the placement order applications to be adjourned to allow the current foster carers to apply for adoption orders in relation to the children and for the Local Authority to then carry out adoption assessments in relation to the applicants. She also asks me to consider making an order under section 34(4) of The Children Act to allow the Local Authority to refuse contact with VR if I adjourn the Placement Order applications, given that VR is asking for more direct contact with AR than the Local Authority think appropriate at the moment. The Local Authority would agree to this.

Expert evidence

As noted earlier Dr Downs, Consultant Clinical Psychologist, was instructed in this case to assess JP and has prepared reports dated 27^th January 2014 (E37-88), 31^st March 2014 (E99-112), and 6^th October 2014 (E125-150). Given the narrowing of the issues in this case, Dr Downs was no longer required to give evidence in the course of this final hearing.

Hair strand tests, liver function, blood and toxicology test reports have also been commissioned in respect of JP and the reports containing the results are at E12-21, E89-96, E97-98, E152-153, E154-159. VR has also undergone hair strand and blood testing for alcohol – reports at E31-36 and E 191-211.

The Bundle also contains reports from Trudy Inge, JP's therapist, at E117-118 and E151.

The initial Guardian in this case was APl and she prepared one report dated 27^th September 2013, E1-10 in the Bundle. APl left the employ of Cafcass and was replaced on this case by NJ on 27^th January 2015. NJ has filed a final analysis and recommendations report dated 9^th March 2015 (E160-179), and one final placement report dated 11^th April 2015, E213-232 of the Bundle.

.

Other professional evidence and assessments

Section C of the Bundle contains statements from the various social workers in this case, in particular the statements of the current allocated Social Worker, JB, which are at C229-257 and C298-310.

Parenting assessments of both parents have been completed and can be found at C2-18, dated 15^th August 2013, and the most recent ones are at C191-203 and C204-217, dated 19^th and 20^th January 2015 respectively. The most recent assessments do not support the return of either child to the care of JP or VR.

A kinship viability assessment has been completed in respect of the maternal aunt (E69-86) which did not support full assessment of her.

At this point I think it is also relevant to note that consideration was also given to assessment of JP's cousin in Latvia but she confirmed that she was not in a position to care for either child and that there were no family members in Latvia who would be able to do so.

Sibling attachment assessment was carried out in November 2014 (C134-142) and an updated report dated 2^nd February 2015 (C218-228). The initial assessment indicated a lack of sibling attachment. The updated report concludes that there is a good sibling relationship established between AR and AP.

The children's current carers have also been the subject of viability assessments (C275-286 and C287-297). All have indicated their willingness to care for the child in their care permanently. DR, who co-authored the viability assessments of the current foster carers and whose Adoption link report and statement are at C111 and C116, also gave evidence about the process and timescales if the Court were to approve the final care plans. She was very clear that a bond could be formed between the two children if placed together and that suitable potential adopters have been identified and could be put forward to Panel on 7^th May 2015. They do not have any Russian family background but neither do the current foster carers. She was also clear that if the current foster carers were to be assessed as prospective adopters this would take 16 weeks and the timescale could not be condensed, relying as it does on DBS and health checks coming back plus 8/9 home visits as part of the second stage of the process. She also explained about the proposed introduction process for the children and potential adopters and envisaged that contact between the children prior to this point would be increased but that the allocated social worker would be best placed to answer questions about this aspect.

JB, the current allocated social worker, gave me evidence that it was her opinion that there was a high risk of JP seeking to disrupt the placements especially when intoxicated if the children remained with their current foster carers. This risk was particularly in relation to AR but she also felt it would apply to AP as she got older. She also believed that the children could develop a sibling bond if placed together. She was concerned that the current foster carers did not appreciate this and would not necessarily promote the sibling bond if the children remained with them. JB also confirmed that the Local Authority fall-back plan, if an adoptive placement for both children could not be identified within six months, was for AR to remain with his existing foster carers and to consider placing AP for adoption alone. She felt that the risks of JP disrupting the placement of AR in these circumstances could be managed but she emphasised that the Local Authority felt it was very likely that the two children could be placed for adoption. In relation to VR, whilst she had some concerns about what he might do in the future in relation to seeking contact with AR, she was less worried about this because of his physical distance from Reading.

Parties' evidence

JP has filed three statements, dated 14^th August 2014 (C133a-133k), 14^th December 2014 (C186-190) and 27^th February 2015 (C258-266). She gave me evidence in the course of this hearing to the effect that she was still hoping that the children could be returned to her at some point in the future, but that she accepted they could not be at the moment. She told me that she would not disrupt the placement and had not done so over the past two years. She did not appear to accept that she still had a significant problem with alcohol. She accepted that she knew the general area within which the children were living with their foster carers and that she knew where AR's school was, but denied knowing the precise addresses for the foster carers.

VR has filed two statements, dated 12^th December 2013 (C66-68) and 12^th March 2015 (C267-274). He did not want to give me evidence in person and neither the advocates nor I felt that he needed to give evidence in person, given the remaining issues in the case.

Relevant legal considerations

In addition to considering section 31 (2) of the Children Act 1989 with regard to threshold, and the welfare checklist contained in section1 of the Children Act 1989. I have also had regard to the cases of Re B-S and the recent case of Re R (A child) with regard to the process I should adopt to evaluate the realistic options for the children in this case. I have also considered the case of Re A in relation to the burden and standard of proof being upon the Local Authority to prove any facts which they assert.

Options in this case

The realistic options in this case, given the parties' positions, are for the children to remain in their existing placements under either adoption (or special guardianship in AR's case); or for them to be placed for adoption in another placement.

Analysis of these options – advantages and disadvantages of each

Given the lengthy timescale of these proceedings, and the voluntary accommodation of AR prior to the application being made for him, both children have spent considerable time in their current placements. They have also never lived together as siblings as AP was born after AR was placed with his current foster carers and she was placed in a separate placement.

The Local Authority final care plans envisage placement for adoption in a single placement for both children as their preferred option. They have identified potential prospective adopters and would hope to put the match to Panel on either 7^th May or 21^st May 2015. The evidence from the Local Authority about timescales for adoption assessment of the current foster carers is that it would require a minimum of 16 weeks and that this could not be shortened significantly. The Local Authority also argues that the children do now have a sibling bond and that their emotional needs are best met by placement together.

Essentially the crux of this matter is the risk of any disruption to the existing placements by JP and how likely the existing foster carers are to promote a sibling relationship between AR and AP. The Local Authority accepts that moving AR, and AP, will cause them emotional harm but argue that this is likely to be short term and far outweighed by the risk of harm in relation to potential disruption and the sibling bond not being maintained. The Guardian is not of the same opinion and believes that the harm which AR and AP will suffer by being moved is greater and may be more long term, than the potential risk of harm in relation to disruption and the sibling bond not being maintained as closely as it could be in a single placement. The Guardian and the Local Authority accept that this is a finely balanced case.

JP's evidence to me was certainly troubling and I can see why the Local Authority have concerns. Despite accepting that she has caused significant harm to AR in the past (she called it "big harm"), she did not appear to accept the extent of her problems with alcohol (and other associated difficulties), nor did she really seem to understand how much work she still has to do to overcome these. She accepted that she had been dishonest with professionals about her continued consumption of alcohol at the end of last year.

From her answers when cross examined by Ms Watson for the Local Authority, she also clearly still has some hope that the children may return to her, possibly in a couple of years she said. She indicated that she plans to move out of the area and find accommodation which is suitable for her and the children. The Guardian took her evidence about these hopes to be aspirational and pointed out the risks in translation. I too have been mindful of the risks of translation in this case. Given what JP said about understanding the permanency of adoption, and her support for the children remaining in their current placements despite her earlier reservations about AR's foster carers, on balance I do accept that she may have been talking aspirationally rather than in concrete terms. She has also made the very brave and no doubt difficult decision not to contest the making of care orders in this case, albeit at a late stage in the proceedings. This decision has been taken despite her obvious love for the children. She must therefore at some really profound level understand that the children cannot return to her care to have made this difficult decision. The fact that she may still harbour hopes of their return is perhaps only natural but it does not necessarily mean that she has a firm belief that they will be returned to her. It seemed to me that the timescale which she indicated of two years was only after repeated questioning from Ms Watson and was rather plucked out of the air. I do find that what she said, allowing for this and translation, was aspirational.

Again when cross-examined by Ms Watson, she told me that she agreed to the Local Authority applications for care orders but asks for the children to remain where they are in the hope that she can have increased contact. When asked to clarify this by Ms Watson, she was clear that she meant an increase to the contact she currently has. This contact is supervised contact twice per week with AR, and three times per week with AP. This is a high level of contact each week and to seek an increase beyond this after final orders have been made, in the context of the concerns about JP's parenting, is worrying. Potentially it shows that JP does not really understand or accept the risk of harm which she still poses to the children, nor their need to settle into a permanent placement.

As was accepted by the Guardian, there is a risk, if the children remain in their existing placements, that JP may cause disruption, particularly when she is intoxicated and less inhibited as a result. Whilst she may not know the precise addresses of the foster carers at present, she lives very close by and in the same general area and has already seen AR once at the local shop. She also knows which school AR is attending. It would not be difficult for her to find out where they live nor would it be unlikely that she may see the children out and about in the local area. The very important question for me is how great is this risk? The Guardian would not commit herself to categorising it in terms of low, medium or high, but said that in her opinion it might only be once or twice a year at most and may not happen at all. The Local Authority clearly believes that it is a high risk, relying particularly on the troubling evidence of JP to me in the course of this hearing.

However, this risk of disruption is one which the Local Authority clearly feels is manageable if they cannot identify an appropriate adoptive placement for both children within six months. It is difficult to reconcile the position taken by the Local Authority in this regard – as I put to the Guardian, their position is illogical and she described it as an anomaly. On the one hand they state that both children need to be together in a single placement yet have done nothing to date to try to secure this. They also state that remaining with the current foster carers carries an unacceptable risk of disruption by JP. On the other hand their fall back plan if no adoptive placement can be identified in six months is to leave AR where he is, at which point they believe the risk is manageable. JB did tell me that she thought it was extremely likely that AR and AP would be placed for adoption. From this I think she meant me to infer that the Local Authority do not in fact see the alternative plan of remaining with the foster carers as likely to happen. It seems to me that this rather misses the point. As was submitted by the Guardian, either the risk is so great that the children cannot remain in their current placements or it is not. I agree with this analysis. It does therefore seem to me that, whilst there is a risk that JP may seek to disrupt the placement if the children remain where they are, it is a manageable risk on the Local Authority's own evidence. I am also not persuaded that the risk is as high as the Local Authority submits. It is for them to prove that the risk is as high as they allege – the point which the case of Re A has emphasised.

The evidence that I actually have before me is of two placements which have been operating without disruption by JP for approximately two years in AR's case and 18 months in AP's. In that time, JP has only once seen AR by chance at the local shop and it appears that the foster carer took appropriate action to turn around and leave before AR saw her. It also appears that JP did nothing untoward in this chance encounter and did not seek to approach AR or his foster carer. She has also been very honest and said that she has seen AP's foster carer's car in the area but has done nothing as a result of this.

I am fully aware that JP has not been as honest with the Local Authority as she should have been in the past about her drinking. The only difference if I make final care orders today will be that the care applications will have been determined and there will no longer be any likelihood of the children returning to her care. The Local Authority thinks that this is likely to prompt her to seek the children out, particularly when she is intoxicated or low. However, even on the Local Authority's own evidence of her previous drinking, she has not to date sought to locate the children whilst intoxicated or when feeling low, even after rehabilitation was no longer part of the Local Authority plan. JB also very fairly accepted that if JP were to have the hope of seeing the children once or twice a year for supervised contact, this might also be sufficient to prevent her from seeking more direct contact.

It is accepted by all concerned that the children have developed secure attachments to their current carers. AR has a particularly close bond with his foster father but both children clearly trust and feel securely attached to their foster carers and this is not in dispute. JB believes that this provides evidence that they can form secure attachments to new adoptive carers. She also accepts that moving them from their current placements should only be done if it is necessary and that moving them will cause them emotional harm. She was criticised by the Guardian's legal representative, Ms Quinn, for failing to adequately assess the impact of that harm upon the children in her analysis of the options. JB's statement starting at C229 did not address this in detail. Neither does her updating statement at C298 onwards – it is covered in one paragraph 2.7 at C303. This does identify that the children will suffer distress as a result of moving from their current placements and that therapeutic support may be sought by the Local Authority to address this. It does not go beyond this.

The Guardian highlighted the key developmental stages at which these children have formed these secure attachments. In AR's case, he was 4 years old when he moved to his current placement and has now spent the best part of two years there. He has spent a third of his young life with this current foster carers and changed from an anxious, withdrawn and unhappy little boy to the happy, secure and confident boy who is thriving and settled and doing well at school. For AP, she was placed with her current foster carer shortly after birth and remained there for approximately 18 months. She has therefore formed a secure attachment with her foster carer in the key 9 to 12 month period for forming such attachments which the Guardian pointed out. It is the Guardian's expert opinion that to sever those secure attachments at this stage will not only cause short term emotional harm to the children as the Local Authority accept, but it will also carry a likelihood of known harm in the future. Evidence does suggest, as she pointed out, that such disruption is likely to lead to magnified difficulties in adolescence for children. She goes further than this and argues that it will compound the damage already caused to AR by the harm he as already suffered. I was particularly struck by this as I think it is important to remember how vulnerable AR is as a result of this harm actually suffered. This aspect was not really addressed in the evidence from JB.

I do find that the risk of disruption from JP to their existing placements if they remain in them is not as great as the Local Authority allege. I base this upon the history to date, where she has not sought to disrupt the placements even when intoxicated and expressing dissatisfaction with the care given to AR by his foster carers. This is despite her close geographical proximity to the foster carers and having seen AR by chance on one occasion. It is also despite her having continued to consume alcohol after rehabilitation to her care was no longer part of the Local Authority plans. She has also, as was pointed out by Ms Quinn for the Guardian, left contact without fuss when asked because she has attended under the influence of alcohol. The risk of disruption is also one which the Local Authority says is manageable if they are unable to place the children for adoption in six months. The foster carers are clearly able to manage this risk, as the Guardian believes and as the Local Authority's own evidence and final alternative care plan indicate. JP herself has also offered me an undertaking to the effect that she will not seek to disrupt the placements. She was also very clear that it is not just the children remaining where they are with a hope of direct contact, however limited, which led her to agree to the care orders. She told me that she changed her mind because the children were happy where they are. From this I take it that she realises just how important it is that she does not do anything to disrupt them.

Balanced against this, I have the fact that moving the children and disrupting such secure and positive attachments that they currently have will cause them emotional harm. I also find that this harm and risk of future harm arising from it is greater than the assessment of JB would suggest. In this aspect I prefer the evidence of the Guardian, who has clearly addressed this issue in greater detail and with greater consideration of the impact upon the children than was apparent in the evidence of JB. The Guardian told me that at his age, AR is 13 times more likely to suffer adoption breakdown. He is clearly very vulnerable as a result of the trauma he has already suffered and this is evident in his emotional difficulties when told that he was returning to his Mother's care and then not, as was noted by the Guardian. Also as noted by the Guardian, the children would be in secure placements with carers that they trust and who can explain any chance encounters or even a direct approach from mother in an appropriate way. I agree with her assessment that the advantages of the children remaining in their current placements far outweigh the more minor risks of any disruption.

JB also put in her statement at C307 that neither foster parent appear to have an insight into the potential risks both children could be exposed to throughout their childhoods due to their close proximity to their mother. I can see little evidence to support this contention. The one instance of a chance sighting of AR by his mother resulted in the foster carer taking appropriate prompt action to remove himself and AR from the vicinity. There is no evidence of AR being upset by this as he has been in relation to the direct contact with his father. As I have found, the risk of such chance or deliberate confrontation is low. The Guardian pointed out that these are experienced foster carers, well equipped to handle this in an appropriate way for both AR and AP. I agree with her assessment in light of the history of the placements to date. JP is also offering me an undertaking that she will not disrupt the placements – suitably worded so that she understands that she cannot approach the children or the foster carers without the permission of the foster carers, I think that such an undertaking would also help to further reduce the risk.

There is also the issue of the sibling relationship (or perhaps the current lack thereof and need to promote one). This is also part of the Local Authority's rationale for seeking to place the children together in an adoptive placement in preference to leaving them with their current carers. JB told me that she believed that the current foster carers would not be likely to promote and support a sibling relationship in the future. She based this upon their comments during the viability assessments which she took to mean that they did not see the intrinsic value of a sibling bond. As was pointed out by Ms Whelan for the mother, it does appear that the Local Authority have done little prior to January 2015 to support the foster carers in promoting sibling contact. Despite this, the foster carers themselves tried to arrange sibling contact without any request from the Local Authority.

JB accepted in her evidence to me that the children do not currently have a close bond. Her evidence was that such a bond could be built if the children were placed together. It does seem to me that the comments of the foster carers in the viability assessment do have to be taken in context. At the time they were made, the foster carers had been trying themselves to set up sibling contact, with two siblings who have never lived together and had no real relationship. There is also a significant age gap between them and AP and AR cannot currently talk properly to each other. Despite this, the foster carers have actually not only tried to facilitate sibling contact but also clearly thought about how they might promote it in future if the children stay with them. At C292 in the viability assessment of DW, paragraph 8.1, it is noted that the foster carers have talked about the children having sleepovers and holidays together which they hope would build the relationships between the two children. I concur with the Guardian's assessment that what the foster carers seem to have been expressing to JB was not so much that they did not see the intrinsic value of maintaining sibling relationships, but that they were slightly struggling in the context of two children who had never lived together and had such an age gap. It seems to me that any concerns in this regard should be assessed in relation to any potential adoption applications and could be addressed by support and training, such as any prospective adopters in cases involving complex sibling contact would normally receive in my experience. JB did confirm that such support would be made available if my decision is for the children to remain where they are.

I am also asked by VR to consider directing a Special Guardianship assessment in relation to AR's foster carers and not to rule out Special Guardianship at this stage. I do find that the arguments of both JB and the Guardian that the children ideally need the greater permanency of adoption are very persuasive in this case. Adoption has the advantage that it makes the children's position with regard to who holds parental responsibility for them much clearer and more final than Special Guardianship would. I am aware that it would sever their ties with their birth family. However, in terms of the risk of harm that each parent poses, this is too great to consider that there is any prospect of the children being returned to their care. The children's sense of identity can be maintained by other means than preserving their birth parents' parental responsibility for them. VR does not currently have an established relationship with AR and AR's wishes and feelings are that he does not at present want any further direct contact with VR. I can see no reason to differ from the views of the Guardian and social worker in preferring adoption for these children if possible and therefore I do not consider it necessary to direct a Special Guardianship assessment.

In relation to direct contact between either parent and the children, I agree with the Guardian that the people best placed to make the decision about whether this is appropriate are the foster carers. In relation to JP, the Local Authority proposed indirect contact for both children in their final care plans if they were place elsewhere, but in the social worker's updating statement at C304 direct contact between the children and their mother on a limited basis is possible if they remain in their current placements and JB confirmed this in her evidence. It is also noted in this same part of the statement that support for direct contact can be provided by Berkshire Adoption Advisory Service. In light of AR's views after his recent contact with his father, neither the Guardian nor the Social Worker support direct contact between AR and his father at this point but suggest that it should be kept under review. I agree with this assessment. I also agree with both of them that some limited direct contact between JP and the children post any adoption should be considered but that this would need to be kept under review. This would be heavily dependent upon JP not seeking to disrupt the placement in any way at all and would, I find, act as an effective brake upon the small risk of her seeking to do so.

Conclusions

I therefore find that I cannot endorse the current care plans to move the children from their current placements if a suitable adoptive placement for both can be identified within the next 6 months. I would endorse the alternative care plan for them to remain in their current foster placements and for those foster carers to apply as soon as possible to adopt the children. BFC would then need to carry out adoptive assessments. I am mindful of the length of time that such assessments are going to take on the evidence of DR. She said that the timescale will be around 16 weeks. This is clearly going to be further delay for these children and it is unfortunate that there is nothing which the Local Authority can apparently do to expedite the process in relation to the home study in light of the fact that these are experienced foster carers and in DW's case have previously adopted. The children have already experienced considerable delay in the resolution of these care proceedings so I can understand the concern of the Local Authority in this regard. However, in essence I am balancing a period of some 4 months or so against the two years which the care proceedings for AR have taken and the nearly 18 months which they have taken for AP. Also balanced against this further delay is the fact that these would be assessments of the long-term placements in which I have found it is in the best interests of the children to remain.

I will therefore direct that the Local Authority amend their final care plan to allow me to make care orders with the alternative care plan of the children remaining in their current placements. I will accept an undertaking from JP, suitably worded as I have noted. I will adjourn the placement order applications for the foster carers to apply as soon as possible for adoption orders. In light of my decision to adjourn, I do accept that it may be necessary for the Local Authority to refuse contact between VR and AR in light of the fact that VR persists in asking for direct contact in the interim despite AR's stated wishes to the contrary. I will therefore also make a section 34(4) order allowing the Local Authority to refuse direct contact between AR and his father.