[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges)
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges) >> A (Children), Re [2016] EWFC B73 (14 July 2016) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2016/B73.html Cite as: [2016] EWFC B73

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

IN THE FAMILY COURT AT NEWCASTLE
IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN ACT 1989
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION AND CHILDREN ACT 2002
AND IN THE MATTER OF A (CHILDREN)

		14th July 2016

Introduction

1. I am concerned with applications by a LA for care orders and placement orders in respect of four children , D, a boy, now aged 7 years 1 month, S, a girl, now aged 6 years 3 months, L, a boy, now aged 3 years 3 months and BR, a boy, now aged 21 months. The LA is represented by Mr Donnelly of counsel. The Mother of all four children is M and I shall refer to her in this judgment as the Mother. She has been represented throughout these proceedings by her Counsel Miss Sweeting.
2. The father in this case is F. He has been represented throughout these proceedings by his Counsel, Ms Dawson. I shall refer to F throughout this judgment as the Father.
3. The maternal grandparents are MGM and MGF and they have been represented throughout these proceedings by Mr Murray of Counsel. I shall refer to them during the course of this judgment as Maternal Grandparents. Today they are represented by Ms Harmer of Counsel.
4. The children who are the subject of these proceedings are represented by Ms Choudhury of Counsel through their Guardian, CG.

Parties' Positions in respect of LA's applications

5. The Mother puts herself forward to care for for D, S and BR and she proposes that L is cared for by Maternal grandparents. She wishes D, S and BR to be placed together and if they cannot be returned to her care then she proposes that they are placed in long-term foster care.
6. The Maternal grandparents put themselves forward to care for L alone. They support Mother in her wish to care for the other three children.
7. The Father supports the rehabilitation of D, S and BR to Mother's care and supports the continued placement of L with Maternal grandparents but puts himself forward as a carer for all of the children if the court is not minded to accede to M's or MGPs' applications.
8. The Guardian supports the making of care orders and placement orders in respect of all 4 children.

Legal Framework

9. The LA's application for a care order is governed by section 31 of the Children Act 1989 and I may only consider making a care or supervision order in this case if I am satisfied that the threshold is crossed namely;

(a)that the child concerned is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm; and

(b)that the harm, or likelihood of harm, is attributable to—

(i)the care given to the child, or likely to be given to him if the order were not made, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give to him;

9. There have, in recent times, been a number of judgments setting out the approach which the court should take in cases where the Local Authority's care plan is one of adoption. The case of Re BS [2013] EWCA Civ 1146 gave clear and firm guidance in cases involving adoption and reflected the words of the Supreme Court in Re B [2013] UKSC 33. I set out here the relevant law which I must apply in this case;

(i) Children's welfare is paramount and in considering the outcome I must have regard to the welfare checklist at section 1(3) Children Act 1989.

(ii) The case of Re C [2013] EWCA Civ 1257 emphasises the need for the court to consider, in deciding whether to approve a care plan of adoption (before moving to consider the placement order), not only the welfare checklist at section 1(3) of the Children Act 1989 but also the enhanced welfare requirements in the Adoption and Children Act 2002 section 1 and section 52. Section 1(2) stipulates that the paramount consideration must be the welfare of the child 'throughout his life' and section 1(4) provides a checklist of factors which I must consider.

(iii) Although the child's interests in an adoption case are paramount, the court must never lose sight of the fact that those interests include being brought up by the natural family, ideally by the natural parents, or at least one of them, unless the overriding requirements of the child's welfare make that not possible.

(iv) Adoption is 'a very extreme thing', 'a last resort'. Placement orders should only be made where nothing else will do, where no other course is possible in the child's interest.

(v) The court's assessment of the parents' ability to discharge their responsibilities towards the child must take into account the assistance and support which the authorities would offer. So "before making an adoption order … the court must be satisfied that there is no practical way of the authorities (or others) providing the requisite assistance and support." As Hale LJ said in Re O (Supervision Order) [2001] EWCA Civ 16, [2001] 1 FLR 923, para 28:

"It will be the duty of everyone to ensure that, in those cases where a supervision order is proportionate as a response to the risk presented, a supervision order can be made to work, as indeed the framers of the Children Act 1989 always hoped that it would be made to work. The local authorities must deliver the services that are needed and must secure that other agencies, including the health service, also play their part, and the parents must co-operate fully."

(vi) Article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms is clearly engaged. The overarching principle remains as explained by Hale LJ, as she then was, in Re C and B [2001] 1 FLR 611, para 34:

"Intervention in the family may be appropriate, but the aim should be to reunite the family when the circumstances enable that, and the effort should be devoted towards that end. Cutting off all contact and the relationship between the child or children and their family is only justified by the overriding necessity of the interests of the child."

(vii) As set out at paragraph 23 of Re BS the well-established principle derived from s1(5) of the Children Act 1989 read in conjunction with s 1(3)(g), and embodied in s 1(6) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 Act is that the court should adopt the 'least interventionist' approach.

(viii) It is the obligation of the local authority to make the order which the court has determined is proportionate work. The local authority cannot press for a more drastic form of order, least of all press for adoption, because it is unable or unwilling to support a less interventionist form of order. Judges must be alert to the point and must be rigorous in exploring and probing local authority thinking in cases where there is any reason to suspect that resource issues may be affecting the local authority's thinking.

(ix) Re BS also emphasises that the evidence must address all the options which are realistically possible and must contain an analysis of the arguments for and against each option. There needs to be a 'global holistic evaluation' by the court evaluating all the options, taking into account all the negatives and positives of each.

(x) Section 52(1)(b) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 provides that the consent of a parent with capacity can be dispensed with only if the welfare of the child "requires" this. "Require" here has the Strasbourg meaning of necessary, "the connotation of the imperative, what is demanded rather than what is merely optional or reasonable or desirable": Re P (Placement Orders: Parental Consent) [2008] EWCA Civ 535, [2008] 2 FLR 625, paras 120, 125. This is a stringent and demanding test. In Re P para 126 it was stated by Wall J that:

"Section 52(1) is concerned with adoption – the making of either a placement order or an adoption order – and what therefore has to be shown is that the child's welfare 'requires' adoption as opposed to something short of adoption. A child's circumstances may 'require' statutory intervention, perhaps may even 'require' the indefinite or long-term removal of the child from the family and his or her placement with strangers, but that is not to say that the same circumstances will necessarily 'require' that the child be adopted. They may or they may not. The question, at the end of the day, is whether what is 'required' is adoption."

10. The LA carries the burden of proof and during the course of this judgment where I make findings I do so on the balance of probabilities as set out in Re B (Children) [2008] UKHL 35. Findings of fact must be based on evidence (including inferences that can properly be drawn from the evidence and not on suspicion or speculation: hearsay evidence is admissible in family proceedings but has strict limitations where the evidence/ fact sought to be proved is in issue. Re A(A child) (Fact Finding Hearing:Speculation) (2011) EWCA Civ 12 and Re A (A child) [2015] EWFC and Re J [2015] EWCA Civ 222. )

Factual background

11. M was born on 6^th July 1989. MGF, MGF, is not M's biological father but has treated M as his daughter. There were referrals to children's services in 1995 relating to MGM's low mood and M not attending school and on one occasion M attended school unsupervised in her nightclothes. There were continued concerns about a lack of parental supervision by MGPs in 1996. In 1997 MGM reported an incident of domestic violence by MGF. At aged 12 years old M became involved with the Youth Offending Team and in 2004 M reported that she had been physically assaulted by MGF. There were concerns about poor parenting and a lack of boundaries in respect of M and her siblings. Around this period M began to use cannabis and demanded money from MGPs to fund her habit. This caused conflict between MGPs as MGM would accede to M's demands and MGF did not approve. In 2005 there was a further incident of volatility between M and MGF when MGF threw M out of the home after he had been drinking. M spent time living with other family members or friends and she missed a year of education and failed to engage with the Youth Offending Team. The difficulties were not limited to M, as MGPs also struggled to manage the behaviour of their son, Nathan, who was reported to have ADHD and display aggressive behaviour towards his siblings and others. M and her three siblings were all made subject of CPPs under the category of neglect on 11.7.2005. Three months later M's name was removed from the register as she was residing with her grandmother in a different area.
12. M moved into independent living aged 16 years old and she met F whilst babysitting F's older children and commenced a relationship with him. F's relationship with the mother of his older children featured domestic violence and abuse and his children were all subject to child protection plans and he had no contact with them. It was against this background that a referral was made in the early stages of M's pregnancy with D in November 2008. M and F denied any domestic violence in their relationship and the initial assessment did not recommend further involvement by children's services.
13. A referral was made in March 2011 when D, who was then only 21 months old, was found by police wandering in the central reservation of the FB. M attended and explained D had been left with F and had managed to open the front door and make his way onto the bypass 20-30 metres away with F only noticing when M returned home. There were further concerns expressed about a lack of supervision of both children in October 2011.
14. L was born on 12.4.2013 and spent the first 8 months of his life living with MGPs due to a family arrangement orchestrated out of a desire to protect him as a new born baby from a scabies infection within the family.
15. In October and November 2013 there were repeated incidents of loud music coming from the family home attended by people who were either drunk or under the influence of drugs.
16. In November 2013 M was expressing concern about the behaviour of D, aged 4 1/2 years. She described D shouting, swearing, threatening to push his young brother onto the tram track, being fascinated with lighters/ fire, threatening to set fire to things and refusing to adhere to boundaries. M admitted that D watched films with an 18 classification, stated that she herself had anger management issues including being angry with F and that the children had witnessed her shouting and arguing with other parents which has caused them upset. The case was transferred to the Intensive Family Support Service and Core Assets intervention became involved.
17. A drugs warrant executed at the home in January 2014 found amphetamine belonging to Father and cannabis paraphernalia (which M initially alleged was F's but then accepted she herself was a cannabis user). Concerns were also raised about the presence in the family home of M's uncle, DD, who was on a methadone programme, and home conditions being dirty, untidy and containing dog faeces.
18. An ICPCC was convened on 25.2.2014 and the children were made subject of CPP under the category of neglect. At the RCPCC in May 2014 it was noted that the parents were not engaging with services. Barnardos Intensive Family Support Service became involved in May 2014 and this support continues to date. The statement of BL in the Bundle details the wide-ranging extent of the support offered to the family but the parents' acceptance of or engagement with that service was sporadic. Engagement with other services such as midwifery or NECCA was also lacking such that by 17.6.2014 a Legal Gateway Meeting was convened. At this meeting there was continued concern from professionals about parental lack of engagement, limited supervision of the children, lack of boundaries and chaotic home conditions. It is also noted at this time that it was suggested that MGM apply for a Child Arrangement order in respect of L but it was recorded that MGM has 'cooled off and feels she doesn't want to commit to L.' Continued support from Barnardos was recommended.
19. Although there had been some improvement by October 2014, professionals were still expressing concern about a lack of full engagement but the parents were again offered further assistance and monitoring pursuant to the CPP. Due to a lack of progress a Legal Gateway meeting took place on 18^th May 2015 and a Letter Before Proceedings Meeting was held on 4^th June 2015.
20. Around this time the parents separated but F continued to visit the family home each day for most of the day and I understand from the oral evidence of the parents that they were in fact still in a relationship at this time and F was regularly staying at the family home. Problems in the family home continued, M reported low mood and although she agreed to access support to address her mental health difficuties, she failed to do so. Inappropriate family members were found to be staying at the property including a man referred to as Uncle B who described himself as a 'raging alcoholic' and ex-heroin user who told BL that he is prescribed diazepam, has mental health problems and self-harms. He was reported to have shown the children the scars from such episodes. M herself expressed concern about Uncle B visiting indicating that he hears voices to harm himself and she was worried that he would hear voices telling him to harm the children. Father displayed no such anxiety about these inappropriate influences asserting that these relatives should be entitled to visit and thus demonstrating an utter disregard for the welfare of his children. Another relative, Uncle H, was a regular visitor to the family home and he had alcohol issues and severe personal hygiene problems. During this period BR was not presented for medical or speech and language appointments, a letter was received from the consultant paediatrician in August 2015 stating that he had missed multiple hospital appointments and BR was discharged from the dietician due to non-engagement. L often missed nursery sessions and it took nine months for S to attend the eye appointments necessary to obtain her glasses.
21. A Family Group Conference was convened on 2.8.2015 but this did not elicit any improvement and at a Core Group Meeting on 4.9.2015 the parents became embroiled in a row, shouting and swearing in the presence of BR. F expressed the opinion that BR was too young to be affected by this behavior. The parents' engagement with support services deteriorated to the extent that both became aggressive to professionals.
22. In October 2015 M was attributing the blame for the family's difficulties to F, referring to him allowing inappropriate people into the family home and sharing her concern that he was shouting and swearing at the children as a form of parenting. M was adamant that she was going to parent the children on her own appropriately and she was going to be consistent in routines and boundaries and not miss any appointments. Sadly M's expressed good intentions did not come to materialise and five days later L missed a speech and language appointment despite M being reminded to attend. Thereafter BL, the health visitor and nursery nurse noted poor engagement, the home remained chaotic with numerous visitors - including maternal uncle N who had been removed by the police previously due to violent behaviour, school raising concern about D's aggressive behaviour and nursery reporting L's poor attendance and aggressive behaviour. At the Core Group Meeting on 5^th November 2015 BL described as harrowing an incident when she observed BR crying silently but ignored by the adults around him. Mother's response during that meeting was to threaten to rip BL's 'fucking head off.' In November 2015 S described ongoing domestic abuse between the parents describing Father calling Mother a 'slag' and telling Mother to 'fuck off', stating this ongoing abuse made her feel 'sad and grumpy.'
23. In the circumstances the LA decided to instigate care proceedings, at which point M moved L into the care of MGPs on 3.12.2015. The LA commenced care proceedings on 21.12.2015 however M continued to fail to engage with professionals and concerns remained. On 6.1.2016 D and S aged 6 and 5 respectively were found in a local park by police after being spotted by a member of the public. When M attended to collect the children the police noted a smell of cannabis. On 23^rd/24.1.2016 D and S were seen unaccompanied in the community. M's response to these incidents was to blame the children for leaving the street.
24. At an interlocutory hearing on 29.1.2016, M did not oppose D, S and BR's removal to foster care and care orders were made. L remained in the care of MGPs, the LA accepting that the test for interim removal was not met.

Threshold

25. The statutory threshold which is the gateway to a public law order being made is set out at section 31 of the Children Act 1989. The LA must establish that at the relevant time, in this case identified as 15^th December 2015, the children were suffering and/or were likely to suffer significant harm and that the likelihood of harm was attributable to the care given to the child, or likely to be given to him if the order were not made, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give to them.
26. A document has been produced by the Local Authority dated 29^th June 2016 which summarises the parents' position regarding threshold. It incorporates factual concessions by Mother and Father albeit Father continues to deny some of the matters which Mother accepts and Father does not accept that the statutory threshold is crossed. In light of F's position and his desire to care for the children the court has found it necessary to determine the issues in dispute which go to welfare as well as threshold.
27. Turning to that document;

(1) Both parents accept that there was a failure to afford the children a stable lifestyle as a result of their own unstable lifestyle.

(2) The Mother accepts that she has had a long-standing substance misuse issue in respect of cannabis. The father accepts that he has had substance misuse problems for approximately 20 years including misuse of cannabis, amphetamine and alcohol but he does not consider this should be properly described as 'long-standing'. Without hesitation I find that it is entirely appropriate to describe Father's substance misuse as long-standing and his failure to acknowledge this in his evidence demonstrated the sort of unhelpful and truculent attitude which pervaded a significant part of his oral evidence.

(3) Both parents accept the father's use of domestic violence in both his previous relationship and that with the mother. It is asserted on behalf of father that the children were not exposed to this. It is fair to say that when the parents were in a relationship Mother was less than forthcoming about incidents of domestic violence between them. At the start of her oral evidence before me she was stating that any incidents of actual violence occurred before the children were born. During cross examination of M by Ms Choudhury M described Father as being violent every few months when he would do things like dragging her by the hair while in drink. Mother stated that the children would be in the home on some of these occasions. Mother said she would 'give as good as she got' and hit father back. I found that part of Mother's evidence utterly compelling. In my judgement Father minimised the violence in their relationship and I was left with the clear view that Father did not take domestic violence seriously. I am entirely satisfied that the children were present in the home on occasions when violence occurred between the parents and I further find that due to previous physical violence there was an underlying threat of this being repeated during abusive arguments between the parents. This created an atmosphere of aggression, fear and hostility to which the children would have been exposed.

(4) The Mother accepts that the children were exposed to the parents' volatile relationship including controlling behaviour and throwing items by the father, and verbal aggression and arguments by both parents. The father does not accept that his behaviour was controlling. It is said on Father's behalf by Ms Dawson that Mother would not have stayed with him as long had he been controlling and she would have shared her fear of Father with her parents if this had been the reality. These courts regularly hear evidence from victims of abusive relationships who remain in partnerships characterised by control and abuse. Having heard Mother and Father's oral evidence I was struck by the lack of respect which Father demonstrated for the Mother depicted by the way in which he spoke about her and the number of times he appeared to sneer at her while she sat in the well of the court. Mother told me that he repeatedly accused her of being unfaithful during the course of their relationship and spoke to her in derogatory and verbally aggressive terms. I am entirely satisfied that he called her a 'slag' in front of their daughter and that he was verbally abusive and controlling for much of their relationship. Even Father conceded, in a rare moment of consideration of the children's needs, that they would have been aware of the aggressive behaviour of the parents towards each other and this would have been in his words a 'little frightening'

(5) Mother accepted that she failed to work consistently with professionals. This was not accepted by the father however I have read carefully the evidence of BL from Barnardos whose evidence was not challenged who reports that both parents resented professional involvement and were at times verbally abusive towards her. I find that F did fail to engage with professionals. It is asserted on Father's behalf in his counsel's written submissions that the LA has failed to establish a causal link between this fact and harm to the children. In my judgement the causal link is obvious. Father's failure to effect change in his parenting and engage with professionals to address the deficiencies in his parenting resulted in his poor parenting continuing and the children's continued exposure to harm. Indeed Father's antipathy towards professionals was also manifested in his aggressive behaviour towards them in the presence of the children which in my view contributed to the aggressive behaviour demonstrated by the children towards their peers and adults around them.

(6) At paragraph 6 the parents' failure to ensure the children's health needs are met as a result of their inconsistency in attending medical appointments is pleaded. Mother accepts that this was the case but father does not. The Mother's acceptance is consistent with the information from professionals within the court bundle and I reject Father's account.

(7) Paragraph 7 related to the mother's low mood which is accepted.

(8) At paragraph 8 it states that the parents allowed inappropriate adults to be present within the home. Mother accepts that this occurred but it is not accepted by the father. As indicated in my summary of the factual background there were a number of incidents of inappropriate adults frequenting the family home and the children being exposed to their substance abuse or their mental health problems. I therefore make this finding.

28. As is clear I reject Father's denial of the matters relevant to him. I also unhesitatingly find that the statutory threshold criteria is crossed. The fact that Father continues to be of the view that the intervention of the Local Authority and the court in his children's lives was unjustified demonstrates his total lack of insight into the shortcomings of his parenting and the harm to which he and Mother were exposing the children.

Care Plans

29. The LA filed amended care plans in respect of D, S and BR the first day of the hearing. There were also various changes, clarification and additional matters to the care planning in respect of all four children that emerged during the course of the hearing in oral evidence. Final written versions of all four care plans were submitted after the conclusion of the oral evidence which all parties have had the opportunity of reading prior to preparing their written submissions.
30. The LA's care plans for D S and BR can be summarised as follows;

(i) Months 1-3 search for an adoptive placement for D, S and BR together. A concurrent search will also take place during this period for an adoptive placement for D and S together and a separate search for an adoptive placement for BR.

(ii) Months 3-6 the search will continue for an adoptive placement for D and S together and there will be a separate search for an adoptive placement for BR.

(iii) Months 6-12 the search for an adoptive placement for BR will continue.

(iv) Contact will be reduced over a six week period if the orders are granted and after 6 weeks contact will take place monthly between D, S, BR, parents and L until an adoptive placement is identified and there will be an additional contact once per month between BR and D and S recognising that the plan is to find a placement for them together. Once adoptive placements are identified direct contact will cease with parents and indirect contact will take place twice per year.

(v) In the event that D and S are in a separate adoptive placement from BR the Local Authority will aim to find adopters who will facilitate annual direct contact between the siblings. If this is not possible indirect contact between the siblings will take place twice per year.

(vi) During months 1-6 a concurrent search for a long term foster placement will take place for D and S but will only be implemented if the search for an adoptive placement is unsuccessful after a six month search. If D and S are placed in long term foster care it is proposed that contact takes place between the children and their parents 6 times per year.

31. The Local Authority's final care plan for L can be summarised as follows;

(i) Plan for permanence via adoption with L being removed from the care of MGPs and placed in foster care to prepare him for an adoptive placement. Therapeutic work is to take place while in foster care.

(ii) Reduction in contact between L, parents, MGPs and siblings over a period of 6 weeks with monthly contact thereafter until an adoptive placement is identified.

(iii) Upon the identification of an adoptive placement direct contact with parents and MGPs to be terminated and indirect contact to take place twice per year.

(iv) Search for adopters who would be willing to promote annual inter-sibling direct contact but if this is not possible indirect contact with siblings twice per annum.

32. It is only right to indicate that there was a lack of clarity about the plan of adoption for L at some points during the social worker's evidence. Mr W indicated during cross-examination by Mr Murray that the Local Authority would look to put therapeutic work in place for L if he came into foster care and after such work had been undertaken then the Local Authority would take a view whether the plan for L should be long term foster care or adoption. During cross-examination on behalf of the Guardian Mr W accepted that the plan for L was in fact adoption without awaiting the outcome of the planned therapeutic work and the Local Authority would commence a search for an adoptive placement immediately upon a placement order being made. Had the LA's final position been that therapeutic work would need to take place to inform them as to whether adoption was in fact the right plan for L then clearly the court would not have been able to make a placement order. (F (A Child) [2013]EWCA 1277.

THE REALISTIC PLACEMENT CHOICES

33. The court is only required to scrutinise the 'realistic options'. As Pauffley J said in Re LRP (A child) (Care Proceedings:Placement Order) [2013] EWHC 3974 para 40 "the focus should be upon the sensible and practical possibilities rather than every potential outcome, however far-fetched."

Father

34. I am of the clear view that the Father is wholly unable to meet the children's needs and is not a realistic option. I find this for the following reasons;

(i) He does not accept any deficiencies in the care he afforded to the children prior to their removal. He is of the view that the behavioural difficulties which the children were demonstrating which included swearing and high levels of physical aggression etc were entirely normal. He considered the professional involvement in the children's lives to be a wholly unjustified intervention and stated in evidence that it was the professionals who caused the damage to his children. I wholly reject his contention. His utter lack of insight into the harm he caused the children is extremely worrying. His parenting would not change if the children were returned to his care and therefore they would continue to suffer harm as they did prior to proceedings.

(ii) Father misuses alcohol and drugs. During his evidence he informed me that he was drinking almost every night up until 2/3 weeks ago, this involved drinking 6/7 bottles of brown ale per night. He admitted using cannabis regularly and also amphetamine. Father's lifestyle is simply not conducive to looking after children, he was recently stopped in a car with friends where there were knives and baseball bats. He told me in evidence that he would stop his abuse of drugs and alcohol if the children were in his care. The fact that he has not even been motivated to address his problems during these proceedings gives me no confidence whatsoever that he can remain free of these malign influences if the children were placed in his care

(iii) Father demonstrated his inability to prioritise the needs of the children by failing to attend contact for 4 months and failing to make changes in his lifestyle. He did not put himself forward as a carer for the children until June 2016 and did not engage in a parenting assessment.

(iv) Father struggles to manage the children or parent them appropriately even within the confines of supervised contact . By way of example he threatened to hit D if he did not behave during one contact and he also fails to impose proper boundaries in respect of L resulting in D and S stepping in to try and address this. He also uses inappropriate language in the presence of the children , frequently swearing at them. It is notable that when the parents were caring for the children D had very limited speech but upon encountering one professional he told her to 'Fuck off'. In my judgement Father has no comprehension of the emotional damage caused to the children by his verbally abusive language. Children learn by example and Father has on many occasions failed to be a suitable role model. As a result of his behaviour in contact, contact has been suspended on a couple of occasions and a written agreement was implemented which Father still breaches on occasions.

(v) I find that Father uses violence or the threat of violence to control those around him. He was violent and abusive to his previous partner and to Mother. He uses the threat of violence in contact to the children. Father told me that he would give the children a clip around the ear or a slap on the head to chastise them and demonstrated this by slapping himself on the head in the witness box. He portrayed no insight into the inappropriateness of this form of punishment or understanding that this is likely to contribute to the children's aggressive behaviour.

(vi) Father suggests that the family will co-operate together to look after the children. In my view the children need the stability of one home. Relationships are at times strained between maternal and paternal family and only the week before the final hearing the social worker was called to reception at the Civic Centre in G due to a verbal altercation between the parents. Mother told me in evidence that Father told her that it was all her fault that the children were in care and threatened to punch her in the head if she didn't get them back. His verbal aggression continued and he stated that if Mother fell pregnant to Mr H then he hoped she would miscarry or that the baby would come out dead. Father accepted Mother's version of events in respect of this episode. It was apparent during the hearing that he still feels very bitter about the separation from Mother and her relationship with Mr H.

(vii) Throughout his evidence Father demonstrated a complete lack of responsibility and empathy. By way of example when he discussed S retiring to her room as she was frightened by the verbal aggression and chaos around her he stated "What am I to do about that?…….The kids were a bit upset, are you telling me kids don't get upset anymore? They were doing alright before social workers stuck their noses in."

35. I found Father to be one of the most unimpressive witnesses I have heard in evidence. During the course of the hearing I also had the opportunity of observing his demeanour while others were giving evidence. He pulled faces during the social worker's evidence, at one point referring to Mr W's evidence as 'Bollocks'. During his evidence at some points he was lacksadaisical leading me to believe he was not taking the proceedings seriosuly. In response to a question from his own counsel as to whether he could manage the children's behaviour he retorted that he would 'give it a go'. For all the reasons outlined I do not consider that Father is even a realistic option as being able to afford safe care to the children.
36. The realistic choices for the children in my view are,

(i) Placement of D, S and BR with Mother

(ii) Placement of L with Maternal Grandmother.

(iii) Adoption for D, S, L and BR.

(iv) Long term fostering for the children.

37. Placement of D, S and BR with Mother- Advantages

(i) The advantages of placement with the Mother are that these three children would be placed within the birth family and be able to maintain relationships with family members, the most important relationship being with their parents and in particular their Mother who was their primary carer until removal in January 2016. I have no doubt that D, S and BR are loved by their parents and maternal grandparents very much.

(ii) Such a placement is consistent with Mother's article 8 rights and would allow the children to maintain a sense of identity as a member of their birth family.

(iii) Placement of the three children with Mother is the only option before the court that guarantees that this sibling group can remain living together

(iv) If these three children were placed with Mother and L remained in the care of MGPs it would also allow regular inter-sibling contact to take place. The importance of those sibling relationships cannot be underestimated.

(v) This placement would be consistent with D and S's wishes and feelings.

38. Placement with Mother- Disadvantages

(i) The children's needs have not been met adequately in Mother's care prior to removal. They have been exposed to domestic violence and abuse, had a lack of routine, boundaries and supervision, missed medical appointments and been exposed to aggressive and volatile behaviour.

(ii) The professionals believe the children's physical and emotional needs will not be met if they are returned to Mother's care.

(iii) Mother has been resistant to professional involvement and at times failed to engage. Professionals believe this is likely to continue.

(iv) Mother has not fully accepted the deficiencies in her care.

(v) Mother does not recognise the children's emotional needs.

(vi) Mother has struggled to manage the children's needs in contact.

40.Placement of L with MGPs – Advantages

(i) L is currently residing with MGPs and therefore there would be no need for a change of placement.

(ii) The MGPs are currently meeting L's basic needs and are likely to be able to continue to so do in the future.

(iii) Since being placed in the full time care of MGPs since start of December 2015 L's nursery attendance has improved, his speech had improved and the episodes of his aggressive behaviour have decreased in frequency albeit still occur.

(iv) L would be placed within the birth family and be able to maintain relationships with family members, the most important relationship being with his MGPs but he would also be able to have contact with his parents.

(v) The MGPs demonstrated an acceptance of the concerns in respect of their own parenting during their evidence and in MGF's written statement dated 24^th June 2016. This of course must be set against a background of having failed to demonstrate such insight or acceptance hitherto.

(vi) L and MGPs have a strong loving bond and he appears very attached to them.

39. Placement with MGPs- Disadvantages

(i) Grandparents have been significantly involved in L's care throughout his life and have been unable to prevent him suffering harm

(ii) Grandparents' care of their own children has been deficient and their children were all subject to Child Protection Plans for a period of time.

(iii) There has historically been domestic violence in MGPs' relationship.

(iv) During the assessment process the MGPs failed to accept the defects in their parenting of their own children or the extent of the shortcomings in the parenting provided by Mother and Father.

(v) MGPs and MGF in particular appeared to be resentful of professional interference in the lives of their grandchildren and were also resentful of interference of children's services in the lives of their own children historically.

(vi) MGPs had been part of the ad hoc care arrangements for L who was vacillating from their home to his parents' home and MGPs had not ensured that he had stability.

(vii) Professionals do not believe that MGPs can meet L's emotional needs.

40. Adoption for children- Advantages

(i) Any prospective adopters will have undergone a rigorous and comprehensive assessment before they are approved to care for a child. It is reasonable to assume that they will provide a high standard of parenting. The child will have been matched specifically with them and they will be approved as being able to meet the child's particular needs. In all probability they will protect the children from physical and emotional harm and be able to provide them with a secure and stable childhood.

(ii) The children will have a permanent home and be part of a permanent family, it is an order made for all time.

(iii) It offers greater stability and permanence than long term fostering.

(iv) Routine life is different for an adopted child than a fostered child as the Local Authority has no further involvement in the child's life.

41. adoption- Disadvantages

(i) If the children are adopted they lose the relationship with their family members and particularly their parents and MGPs.

(ii) Although the LA proposes to look for an adoptive placement for D, S and BR together this will be time limited for 3 months. Given the paucity of adoptive placements available for 3 siblings together combined with the demanding needs of these children I must accept that it may well be the case that D and S are separated from BR. On the LA's plan L will also be separated from all his siblings and have much more limited contact than if all the children were in family placements.

(iii) Given the ages of D and S there is greater risk of adoption break down.

(iv) Adoption is no panacea and adopters face all the vicissitudes of life encountered by other parents with the added complication that they are caring for a child who is not their birth child. I also accept that the fact that a child is not brought up by its birth family can also cause that child emotional harm. Adoptions can and do breakdown, particularly with older children, sometimes with disastrous consequences.

(v) If L is removed from the care of MGPs this is likely to cause him distress and I consider that he would miss them dearly. It would also require him to be placed in a bridging foster placement initially before any adoptive placement and therefore tow more changes of carers for him.

(vi) If the children are adopted the plan is that they will have no direct contact with their adult birth family members which is likely to affect them detrimentally.

42. Long-term fostering- advantages

(i) Any foster carers will have undergone a rigorous and comprehensive assessment before they are approved as a local authority carers. It is reasonable to assume that they will provide a high standard of parenting to any child in their care.

(ii) The children would have continued contact with their birth family.

(iii) The children and foster carers would receive ongoing support from the Local Authority.

(iv) It may be more likely to find a long-term foster placement for three children than an adoptive placement.

43. Long-term fostering- disadvantages

(i) Long term fostering would mean the children could not live with their birth family.

(ii) Long-term foster placements carry a greater risk of breakdown than adoption.

(iii) Long term fostering is likely to feel less permanent to the child than adoption and does not offer the commitment of an adoptive placement.

(iv) There is greater risk of instability as the birth family may apply to discharge the care order.

(v) The child has the continued intervention of the Local Authority throughout its life, growing up within the 'care system'.

ANALYSIS OF WELFARE

44. Having found the threshold satisfied I must now turn to the welfare considerations. All four children are at the heart of this case, in law and in reality their welfare is paramount. In considering this I must have regard to the welfare checklist at section 1(3) Children Act 1989 and because the plan is one of adoption the 2002 Act checklist. Clearly some of the factors assume more importance than others on the particular facts of this case. I consider the following to be the most significant factors;

(a) The children's ascertainable wishes and feelings

(b) The children's particular needs

(c) The likely effect upon the children throughout their life of having ceased to be member of their birth family and becoming an adopted person.

(d) The child's age, sex, background and any of the child's characteristics which the court or agency considers relevant.

(e) The harm the children have suffered and are at risk of suffering.

(f) The relationship which the children have with relatives and the likelihood of any such relationship continuing and the value to the children of its doing so and the capacity of a relative to provide any of the children with a secure environment in which the child can develop and otherwise to meet the child's needs. The wishes and feeling of family members regarding the plans.

(a) Children's ascertainable wishes and feelings

45. D and S have expressed a wish to live with their Mother to the social worker on at least 2 occasions. Mother also tells me that they regularly express these sentiments during contact. Of all 4 children they have probably the greatest attachment to their Mother and I have no doubt that they love their Mother greatly. She is warm and affectionate to all 4 children during contact and they respond well to this.
46. L is too young to verbalise his feelings but I accept that if he were able to do so he would say that he wished to remain in his current placement with MGPs. I also accept that he would wish to see his siblings regularly and his parents.
47. BR is too young to express his wishes and feelings. He is still only 21 months old and has been in foster care since he was 14 months old.

(b) & (d) Children's particular needs and age, sex , background and any of the child's characteristics which are considered relevant.

48. All four children need a safe, stable and nurturing environment.
49. D has presented as aggressive within school and at home in parents' care. S has no specific health needs save that she wears glasses and was overweight upon reception into foster care. She is considered a bright child who is slightly behind her expected levels at school. L has displayed extremely aggressive behaviour in nursery and at home. He has delayed speech and language. He is currently being investigated in respect of foetal alcohol syndrome and there is a pending appointment to consider whether he has any genetic condition. BR has had a number of hospital attendances in his life. He has eczema and an intolerance to lactose and dog saliva. He has ongoing medical input in respect of the concern that he may have foetal alcohol syndrome.
50. The LA undertook an assessment of the sibling relationship. The assessment concluded that D and S have the strongest and healthiest sibling relationship and have the capacity to nurture and provide emotional support to one another. The assessment notes L's poor childhood experiences and additional behavioural needs such that he requires intensive parenting beyond the norm; and similarly BR has the capacity to require such parenting. The assessment recommended that D and S be placed together, whilst L and BR be placed separately. The court acknowledges that the Local Authority wish to search for an adoptive placement for D, S and BR together initially.

© The likely effect upon the children throughout their life of having ceased to be member of their birth family and becoming an adopted person.

51. Becoming an adopted person and ceasing to be a member of their birth family would allow the children to be protected from harmful influences of family members however the children may well suffer some emotional harm from being permanently removed from their birth family.

(e) The harm children have suffered or are at risk of suffering?

52. It is apparent from the threshold findings that the children had suffered harm and were likely to suffer harm as a result of the parenting they have received.
53. Since D, S and BR were removed from their Mother's care I accept the evidence of the social worker that they have demonstrated improvements in their presentation in foster care.
54. I am of the view that if D, S and BR returned to Mother's care then they are likely to regress again as Mother is in my view likely to struggle to manage their behaviour and competing demands. I am satisfied that their physical and emotional needs will not be met consistently in Mother's care.
55. I accept that Mother has separated from Father permanently and she seems to recognise the damaging effect this relationship had on her and her mental well-being. However there remains considerable acrimony between the parents as demonstrated by the argument which they had outside the civic centre. A further exchange of hostile words occurred outside court during the final hearing. Despite the stated intentions of the parents to try and facilitate contact through extended family I am satisfied that there are likely to be further incidents of volatility between the parents in the presence of the children given the strength of the present hostility between them and the difficulty they have in supressing their emotions.

(f) The children's relationships with family members and ability of parents and MGPs to meet Children's needs?

56. In considering Mother's and MGPs' ability to meet the children's needs I remind myself of the observations of Hedley J in Re L (Care:Threshold Criteria) [2007] 1 FLR 2050, "that society must be willing to tolerate very diverse standards of parenting including the eccentric, the barely adequate and the inconsistent. It follows too that children will inevitably have both very different experiences of parenting and very unequal consequences flowing from it. It means that some children will experience disadvantage and harm, while others flourish in atmospheres of loving security and emotional stability. These are the consequences of our fallible humanity and it is not the provenance of the state to spare children all the consequences of defective parenting. In any event, it simply could not be done."
57. In light of the children's neglectful life experiences in the care of their parents I am satisfied that they need a high enough standard of parenting to address their harmful background and to allow them to grow into secure and emotionally stable adults.

Mother

58. Mother has a warm and loving relationship with the children. She has demonstrated a commitment to contact and genuinely wishes to look after them and is able to show them emotional warmth and affection.
59. It is said on Mother's behalf that the fact that she is now in a relationship which is not marred by domestic violence and where her partner is more supportive means that she is in a better position to care for the children. I am delighted that Mother has been able to extricate herself from a relationship of domestic abuse and pleased that this has caused Mother to feel in better emotional health. However, having heard the evidence of the social worker and read the parenting assessment I have no confidence that Mr H is sufficiently robust or competent to step in and manage the children's unruly behaviour. I further note that after proceedings were instigated and when Mother was in a relationship with Mr H she allowed D and S to wander off on two occasions in January 2016. In my assessment Mother was unable to account satisfactorily for her neglect on these occasion and seemed to attribute it to professionals leading D to believe he was going to be removed. I was struck by her inability to accept responsibility for her failures during these incidents.
60. Mother also tells me that she has now stopped using cannabis and again this is to her credit. Nevertheless it is fair to say that this is a very recent change, set against a long history of cannabis misuse.
61. The Mother has been offered work and support from BL of Barnardos. This work has been ongoing since May 2014. In respect of Mother's engagement with sessions the Social worker stated that it was 50% successful with issues arising such as health difficulties from Mother, sessions Mother forgot about and others that she was unable to attend. Sadly in my view I would have needed to see much greater commitment from Mother to engagement with this work given the difficulties which she has had in parenting the children. During the assessment it was recommended to Mother that she keep a diary of contacts listing challenges and positives as well as activities that went well and those which did not. It was explained to Mother that this was to allow her to reflect on contact and to identify aspects of contact which could then be discussed with the social worker and BL. Regrettably for the children Mother failed to do this. This is a further example of Mother being unable to motivate herself to take steps to make positive changes regarding her parenting.
62. Even with the long standing support that Ms L has provided Mother has not in my view been able to sustain positive change, even in the contact environment and even with the support of Mr H. Contact with the children has sometimes been quite chaotic and Mother has struggled to manage each of the children's individual needs. Instead of enforcing boundaries Mother relents and allows the children to control the contact session themselves, particularly L who will become aggressive or swear. There has been no significant improvement noted in her management of the children during these proceedings. I have considered whether Mother, if she were not caring for L, would be able to manage the other three children's needs. I have no confidence that she will be able to do so especially when one looks at the history and the fact that for significant periods of time L was cared for by MGPs and even when L was not in their care Mother had their support and she was still unable to meet the other children's needs.
63. D, S and BR have made much progress in foster care. The aggressive behaviours demonstrated by D and BR have lessened however contact itself is said to be a trigger for period of unsettled behaviour. The positive changes in D were noted within a matter of weeks. Indeed when BR went on holiday for a 10 day period with his foster carers and had not contact with his family there was an improvement in his behaviour. S's personality is now emerging and she is able to assert herself and no longer needs to physically remove herself from the chaotic environment around her as she did in the family home. The home environment was so volatile and aggressive with the behaviour of her siblings and parents that she could only cope by withdrawing.
64. I found that Mother minimised the concerns about the children in her evidence. In her oral evidence she was unwilling to accept that the children had made improvements in foster care, saying at one point that D did not have behavioural problems in her care and he has got worse since he went into foster care. Mother had to be taken during her evidence to the reference in the chronology from November 2013 when D had a fascination with fires/lighters and was threatening to set fire to things and threatening to push his brother off the side of the metro track. Only then did Mother agree that D was demonstrating quite considerable behavioural problems.
65. Mother told me that she had received 'no support from social services' and informed me that they had done nothing but criticise her and had sent people to the door to 'talk rubbish'. Mother told me that BL from Barnardos simply criticised the family and she did not think there were legitimate reasons for the criticism. I find that Mother received significant support from professionals including the Local Authority and that Mother's perception of the situation was not based in reality.
66. Mother is an extremely likeable and engaging young woman. I fully understand why the children have a warm, loving relationship with her. Regrettably there were many occasions during her evidence when she minimised the failings in her parenting and downplayed the problems which the children had. She was hostile in her references to the social worker, suggesting that he told lies and alleging that he had added things that were untrue to the parenting assessment. I found the social worker to be an entirely fair and truthful witness.
67. In my view Mother really struggles to maintain the boundaries and routines for the children. She relents as she has low self-esteem and she is anxious to avoid upsetting them or alienating them. Huge amounts of work have been carried out with her to assist her in understanding that loving parents need to impose structure and boundaries upon their children. Mother has simply not been able to engage and learn from this work.
68. I have concluded that Mother would be unable to care for the children for the following reasons;

(i) She does not have sufficient insight into the children's needs.

(ii) She does not fully recognise the deficiencies in her parenting.

(iii) She would not be able to manage the children's behaviour or meet their physical or emotional needs.

(iv) She would not engage with professionals .

(v) The harm the children have previously suffered would recur if they were placed in Mother's care.

MGPS

69. In respect of MGPs the concerns identified by the LA and the Guardian are as follows;

(i) Historical domestic violence between MGPs.

(ii) MGPs' own children requiring input from children's services relating to domestic violence, MGF physically assaulting Mother on two occasions when Mother was a teenager, MGPs being unable to manage the behaviour of their own children, the children moving between MGPs' home in G and relatives in M meaning there was a lack of stability and they missed school. MGPs were also resistant to professional involvement.

(iii) During the parenting assessment in these proceedings MGPS demonstrated no real insight into the deficiencies in their parenting of their own children.

(iv) During the assessment MGF stated that if L wanted to return to Mother when he was older that would be 'his choice' thus failing to appreciate L's need for boundaries and stability and failing to recognise the detrimental affect moving between homes had on Mother in her teenage years.

(v) MGPs were significantly involved in L's care throughout his life and also regularly seeing their grandchildren and were unable to prevent the children being exposed to harm and MGF appeared to minimise the problems and resent professional involvement.

(vi) Professionals were concerned that MGPs were unable to recognise and meet L's emotional needs.

70. The point was quite properly made by Mr Murray during cross-examination that the issues of domestic violence and the issues of MGF using physical violence as a form of chastisement are historical and approximately 10 years ago. In light of the length of period since the issues arose about MGPs' own parenting and the fact that the records indicate that the LA wanted the MGPs to apply for a Child Arrangements Order in respect of L in 2014 these historical matters, while concerning, do not justify a permanent separation of L from his grandparents. My focus in this case was whether the MGPs had changed, whether they recognised their previous deficiencies and whether they could now protect L, meet his needs and co-operate with professionals.
71. What has troubled me particularly has been MGF's resentment of professional involvement in his grandchildren's lives and his response to matters raised within the LA assessment. When MGF was asked during the parenting assessment how he would deal with L if he behaved as Mother did when he was 14 MGF's response was that he would 'bat him in the mouth'. Further in response to the fact that his own children had moved between G and M which resulted in them missing significant periods in their education MGF showed no remorse or insight into the negative impact upon them of this. Indeed when asked about L's residence he indicated during the assessment that when he gets older it will be his choice.
72. Upon reading these papers I also shared professional concern that MGPs were actively involved in parenting of L and had not been able to protect him from harm. At present L is being investigated for foetal alcohol disorder and there is also an appointment for genetic testing. Even if either of these factors is relevant to L's behavioural problems I am wholly satisfied that his environmental factors will have at the very least contributed to his aggressive behaviour. I was dismayed to read that in June 2015 MGF was vocal and dismissive of the need for routines during a meeting between the family and professionals. This propensity for MGF to blame professionals continued during a review meeting in September 2015 and I have no doubt it detrimentally affected Mother's willingness to accept concerns and engage with professionals. MGF must accept and acknowledge that he was complicit in the neglect of his grandchildren by that conduct. I cannot ignore those incidents and the comments which he made during the parenting assessment in March 2016.
73. Looking at those meetings and the assessment process I can fully see why the LA took the view that MGPS could not meet the needs of the children and if those had remained the views of MGPs then I would have made the orders sought by the LA in respect of L.
74. However it appears that in very recent time there has been much soul searching on the part of the MGPs. MGF filed a statement in June 2016 where he took responsibility for his mistakes and expressed regret for the deficiencies in his parenting. I was keen to hear him give oral evidence so that I could assess whether his change of heart was genuine or simply a well crafted statement by his legal representatives. MGF gave moving evidence when, in my opinion, he appeared genuinely ashamed and remorseful of the domestic violence in his relationship and very accepting of the shortcomings in his parenting. He told me how his attitude towards domestic violence and his relationship changed when he and his wife lost their baby daughter S in 2006. Out of this tragedy sprung a change of attitude by MGF towards his relationship.
75. MGF told me in his evidence that he agreed that Mother had caused considerable damage to the children. He acknowledged a number of mistakes he made during his parenting of Mother and her siblings and told me very frankly that his parenting had not been good enough. I was struck by his candour and insight when in response to a question from Ms Choudhury about Mother's parenting he stated simply, "If I'd have learned them better they'd have learned their kids better." He elaborated on this about how he did not teach his children the right way to do things and that it was too late to change the mistakes that he had made. MGM continued this theme of acceptance during her evidence when she said "I've learned over the years from having my own kids that kids pick up on what their parents are doing." MGM told me that she would have been much firmer with her own children if she had the chance to do things again. I believed her.
76. I note that during the period when L was in his MGPS full time care for the first 8/9 months there were no concerns expressed about the care which he received. Indeed despite the concerns expressed by the LA about the defects in MGPs' parenting of their own children the LA was suggesting in 2014 that the MGPs should apply for a CAO. It is in my view significant that at this time the undoubted shortcomings in MGPs' care of their own children did not preclude the LA from considering that they should care for L.
77. L has been in the full time care of MGPs since the beginning of December 2015. The social worker accepted in his oral evidence that during this period there have been the following improvements;

(i) Improvements in L's speech and language

(ii) Improvements in attendance at nursery and no concerns about unauthorised absences

(iii) L's behaviour is more settled and he is swearing less frequently and the incidents of aggressive behaviour are less frequent.

78. In a recent report prepared for the Child Protection Review Conference dated 22.06.16 it states:

"There has been a lot of information shared in relation to L, he appears to be doing well in the care of his grandparents and is making positive progress with Nursery. There has been a lot of changes in circumstances within the last 6 months and L appears to [have] adapted to the changes. There is a strong team to support the family and L is being supported for all his needs".

79. It was regrettable in my view that the balance sheet analysis prepared by the social worker in the care proceedings and in the placement proceedings omitted an analysis of placement of L with MGPs despite the fact that he currently lives there and they were putting themselves forward as his permanent carers. I do accept the social worker's evidence that he fully considered all the issues in respect of MGPs and carried out a thorough assessment. It was also regrettable that the Guardian did not speak to MGPs about the LA's assessment after it was prepared in March 2016. In my judgement it should have been part of the Guardian's independent enquiries to have her own discussions with MGPs about the issues rather than wait to hear from them in the witness box. Further, the Guardian had to conduct her Re B-S analysis in the witness box as within her report she had adopted the social worker's balance sheet analysis failing to recognise that it did not in fact refer to placement with MGPs.
80. In her final evidence the Guardian expressed the view that the case in respect of L was 'finely balanced' and she found the decision as to whether L should remain with MGPs a 'very difficult decision indeed'. However on balance she concluded that L should be removed from their care and a plan of adoption pursued. The Guardian was not satisfied that the MGPs could work with professionals or meet L's emotional needs.
81. Mr Murray quite properly pointed out during the hearing the contradiction apparent in the professionals' views that MGPs would not co-operate with professionals if L remained in their care yet the professionals' aspiration or expectation that MGPs would co-operate with the transitional period in removing L from their care into foster care.

CONCLUSION

82. It is apparent from my judgment above that I have come to the firm conclusion that D, S and BR cannot be returned to Mother's care. The options for them are therefore adoption or long term foster care. In my view having conducted a holistic analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of adoption and long term foster care their welfare requires that they be adopted. Adoption provides them with the permanency and security which they require. They deserve the chance of a new family which claims them as their own rather than the uncertainty of long term foster care. I recognise that this means they will lose direct contact with their birth family.
83. In respect of L I share the Guardian's assessment that this is an extremely difficult decision. She, like me, considered that there was genuine remorse and regret expressed by MGPs for their past mistakes in parenting. She had a reservation about their ability to work with professionals and she was concerned about whether they could meet L's emotional needs. She acknowledged that it was a very finely balanced decision. I agree that it is. I have however decided that L should remain in the care of his grandparents under a CAO with a supervision order in favour of the LA. I have come to this conclusion for the following reasons;

(i) MGPs do acknowledge the mistakes in their parenting and have shown genuine remorse and regret.

(ii) MGPs do have insight into the harm that the children have suffered.

(iii) MGPs do now recognise the need for professional intervention.

(iv) L has made progress in their care and I consider the emotional harm of removing him from MGPs' care would outweigh the risk of harm of him remaining in their care.

(v) L is extremely attached to MGPs and particularly MGF. I note that I do not have the evidence to conclude as Mr Donnelly invites me to that L's reluctance to be separated from MGPs may be indicative of an insecure attachment between them. Even if this were the case it would make it all the more difficult for L to attach to new carers.

84. Thus I have decided to refuse the LA's applications for a CO and placement orders in respect of L. I have placed trust in MGPs to work with professionals for the benefit of L. I hope they do not let me down but most of all I hope that they do not let L down. He and his siblings have suffered too much already. He will have much to cope with over the months and years ahead including the loss of a direct relationship with his siblings. That loss is not L's fault nor is it the fault of the professionals. The family must over time acknowledge that the children are in this position due to the parenting they received. Part of the responsibility for that does indeed lie with the MGPs both in respect of the parenting they gave Mother but also their lack of intervention at times in the care being afforded to their grandchildren. I fully understand why at their end of the assessment in March 2016 the LA concluded that MGPs could not meet L's needs. MGF is in my view a proud man, I believe he found it difficult to express his shortcomings and mistakes to the social worker. By adopting that stance he almost lost his grandson whom I accept is extremely precious to him. The MGPs and the parents must recognise that the LA were entirely justified in bringing the applications to the court which they did. The MGPs must work with professionals as only by working together will L's needs be met. They must protect him from further harm.
85. The MGPs indicated through their counsel that they would be open to hearing the court's views on the frequency of parental contact. The MGPs suggested twice per week for Mother supervised by them and once per week for Father supervised by paternal grandmother. I am of the view that twice per week is a high level of contact for Mother but if the family can make it work without destabilising L's placement then I would accept this but the family must take on board the views of professionals during the currency of the supervision order and M's contact must remain supervised for the foreseeable future. I take the view that the suggested frequency of Father's contact of weekly is too high. I am concerned about his volatility and his failure to take on board advice during contact. I also take the view that his contact should be supervised initially by the Local Authority until they have carried out an assessment of PGM's ability to supervise. I would invite the parties to have further discussions in respect of the issues of contact and the formulation of a supervision order support plan.

PLACEMENT ORDER

86. On the application for placement orders, the court applies section 1 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002.I have already had regard above to the checklist of factors to be taken into account in this case set out in section 1(4) of the 2002 Act and concluded that D's, S's and BR's welfare needs throughout their lives can only be met by their placement for adoption.
87. The making of a placement order enables the LA to progress the plan for adoption. Under section 21(3) of the 2002 Act, a court may not make a placement order unless satisfied either that the parent has consented to the child being placed for adoption or that his or her consent should be dispensed with. In this case both Mother and Father have PR. Neither consent to D, S and BR being placed for adoption. In light of my conclusions in this case I dispense with their consent on the basis that the welfare of each child requires it.
88. I therefore make the following orders;

Child Arrangements Order for L in favour of MGPs

Supervision Order in respect of L

Care Orders in respect of D, S and BR

Placement orders in respect of D, S and BR

Public funding direction for Respondents' costs

89. I finally thank the advocates for their assistance during the course of this difficult hearing.