A Local Authority v Father & Ors [2024] EWFC 424 (B)

IMPORTANT NOTICE This judgment was delivered in private. The judge has given leave for this version of the judgment to be published on condition that (irrespective of what is contained in the judgment) in any published version of the judgment the anonymity of the children and members of their family must be strictly preserved. All persons, including representatives of the media, must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so will be a contempt of court.This Transcript is Crown Copyright. It may not be reproduced in whole or in part other than in accordance with relevant licence or with the express consent of the Authority. All rights are reserved.

[2024] EWFC 424 (B)

Case No ZE22C50159

IN THE EAST LONDON FAMILY COURT

11 Westferry Circus

London

E14 4HD

Date of hearing: 25 June 2024

Start Time: 12:18 Finish Time: 14:35

Before

HER HONOUR JUDGE SUH

Between

A LOCAL AUTHORITYApplicant

(1) FATHERRespondents

(2 & 3) THE CHILDRENRespondent

DANIEL LONGE appeared for Applicant

DR WILSON DIRIWARI appeared for First Respondent

VICTORIA ROBERTS appeared on behalf of LM (through his Children’s Guardian)

SUSAN STAMFORD appeared on behalf of MM (through her Children’s Guardian)

Approved Judgment

Digital Transcription by Marten Walsh Cherer Ltd

2 nd Floor, Quality House, 6-9 Quality Court, Chancery Lane, London WC2MM 1HP

Tel No: 020 7067 2900. DX: 410 LDE

Email: info@martenwalshcherer.com

Web: www.martenwalshcherer.com

Date 2024-06-25

[1]F, I know you love both MM and LM, and it was hard for you when their mother passed away. I know that you have done your very best to try and look after them. I know you have Ms N to support you and the wider family who sit at the back of court and who also support you. I have seen how you have supported both your son and your daughter through these long court proceedings. They both love you very much and they both want to be at home.

[2]I have to put them first and I have to do what is best for them, and I think it is best for LM to stay at home with you and for the family and the social worker to help you and LM manage his diabetes and help him become more independent.

[3]I have thought really hard about what is best for MM, and she is a very vulnerable little girl with lots of special needs, and even if you were given a parenting course I am afraid I do not think you would be able to look after her and meet her very particular needs. You are also looking after LM. I do, I am afraid, think it is best for her to be in foster care but to see you and her family a lot. Full Judgment

[4]Today I am concerned with MM, who was born on [redacted], and LM, born on [redacted]. MM is currently with her aunt and LM at home with his father. This is the local authority’s application for a Public Law Order for both children.

[5]I heard this final hearing on 4, 5, 6 and 7 June 2024 and give judgment today, the 25 June 2024. I am very grateful for Mr Longe, for the local authority, Dr Diriwari for the father, Ms Stamford for MM, and Ms Roberts for LM and for both of their guardians remaining in court throughout this final hearing. Everyone agrees it is best for LM to stay with his father under a supervision order with a plan for their wider family and the social workers to support them. MM is currently with her aunt who, after very careful thought, decided that she could not care for her in the medium to long-term. I think that that was a wise and courageous decision. The local authority seeks a care order with a plan to place MM in foster care. This is supported by MM and LM’s guardians, but the father really wants MM to come home and he says he is willing to accept any help he is offered, even to have someone live with him 24/7. He says with the support of Ms N and the family he could look after both children. Background

[6]By way of background, both children have been known to Children’s Services since they were young due to concerns of parental neglect. There were previous care proceedings in 2014 and the children were subject to a 12 month supervision order granted on 30 April 2015.

[7]These proceedings were initiated after a school referral on 11 February 2022. MM said her brother LM had sexually touched her on a number of occasions. LM was placed temporarily in foster care and then he returned to his father three days later on 15 March 2022. He has remained at his father’s house throughout these proceedings. He was initially supported under a Child Protection Plan but is currently under a Child in Need Plan.

[8]MM was placed in the care of her maternal grandparents, firstly under section 20 of the Children Act and then under an Interim Care Order granted on 24 June 2022. MM fact-finding hearing took place in May 2023 and I did not find the allegations made out, but I did find that the father had not made sure the children had appropriate guidance in relation to puberty, sex, relationships and staying safe when on the internet and using social media.

[9]In August 2023 MM moved to the care of her aunt and her partner, who live in [redacted]. This was with the support of the social workers and the wider family. In February 2023 the father travelled to [redacted] and got married to Ms N who moved to the UK in October 2023 and now lives with LM and his father. The family live in a privately rented flat with two double bedrooms and a kitchen and living area combined.

[10]Since August 2023 MM has spent time with her father and brother during the weekends and in December 2023 she began to have fortnightly overnight weekend visits to the family home. There was a Working Together Agreement to establish sleeping arrangements and supervision of the children by their father and their stepmother. That is dated December 2023. Evidence

[11]I have read and re-read the bundle with which I have been provided and may not mention every piece of evidence, but I bear it well in mind. I have also been able to refer to my notes of the oral evidence that people gave in court. Some of the evidence in the bundle has not been tested by the lawyers in cross-examination, and that hearsay evidence, the weight to be attributed to it is a matter for me, but I remind myself of the weaknesses of that type of evidence.

[12]I am going to summarise the main points of each of the witnesses who came to court and spoke during the hearing. The independent social worker gave very balanced and thoughtful evidence. She understood the cultural background of the family and was positive about aunt’s statement when she set out all the support that she could offer her brother-in-law. However, she said you have to bear in mind that relationships between the father and the maternal family have been strained for a long time and it will take time to rebuild. This family, she says, are desperate for MM to grow up with her family and the offer of support is to be welcomed, but it does not mitigate the concerns about supervision and how the extended family could reduce that concern and manage the children’s behaviours.

[13]She said:

“When I was doing my addendum report LM was being adequately cared for. Although not compliant, he was listening to his father and the diabetes management was adequate”

. She noted that LM had become more verbally and even physically aggressive to his father and presented a great deal of challenge to his father and Ms N. She said to introduce MM, when her behaviours have also shown some challenges, would increase the level of risk. She was clear in her view that it was unfortunate that all the recommendations the local authority had been given by her had not been progressed, but she was clear that concerns about contact and the deterioration of the children’s behaviour meant she was very pessimistic about the return of the children together in their father’s care.

[14]The psychologist was a witness who was very considered, and again she commended the aunt, but she thought the key issue was about supervision of the children in the home and also raised concerns about boundaries and routine. She commented on the Family Support Plan that the aunt had put forward in evidence but said that this could not control the dynamics of the brother and sister being in a home together and the level of supervision that their father could provide. Both experts were consistent in their view that the main risks related to supervising the children together and their behaviours.

[15]This social worker who gave evidence started work with the family on 24 January 2024 and she gave measured evidence and was clear in her view it was not best for MM to return home. She was not in any way punitive, she was a witness who accepted she could have done more in terms of making timely referrals, but openly referred to resources being an issue. She was not defensive, but open in her evidence and clear that each child’s level of needs meant that the local authority plan was for them to be cared for separately.

[16]The father comes across as a very softly spoken gentle man, as he did in the fact-finding hearing, and his wife Ms N is clearly a great source of support to him. He clearly loves both his children and was open about the fact that after the death of their mother he struggled. The theme of his evidence was that having MM in his care should be tested now he has the support of his wife and the maternal family, and he is willing to accept any support from the local authority and take advice.

[17]At times he repeated the phrase that he “would do the interventions and with the help of the family would solve the issues”. That seemed to me somewhat rehearsed and at times the evidence he gave seemed to me simplistic, giving the impression that if only MM could come home, they would be a loving family and all would be well. Although he clearly accepted MM has complex needs he was unable to articulate them, spell them out to me clearly. He could not explain to Ms Stamford the insight that he had gained into the children’s needs or give any detail about what he might do differently in the future. He could very clearly describe the physical needs of the children for healthcare and for food, but was less able to explain their emotional needs or see things through their eyes, and his evidence was vague and generalised, in contrast with when aunt or the guardian spoke and gave me a picture of the character and needs of each child.

[18]He does not appear to have a window into the children’s emotional world and was unaware of MM’s report that LM has a girlfriend or a close female friend. He said he did not know about that, and his responses were often superficial and he came across as passive, as he has done on other occasions.

[19]Ms N is a softly spoken and gentle witness. However, like the father, I did not get a sense from her of the character of each child, and she, too, spoke in generalities and was vague. She spoke of the need to look after the children’s diets and medication but her evidence lacked detail and she gave evidence that she and her husband had decided together they would take responsibility for LM, but when asked about the details of his diabetes management she said that the conclusion she reached was that he should look after his health properly. When asked again whether they handled his diabetes well she put the onus on LM. “We do our best” she said “but sometimes he does not look after his health”. Like the father, she appeared to have a limited grasp of what the children’s lived experiences had been.

[20]The aunt and her partner came to speak to the court without giving sworn evidence, and they described MM vividly and they clearly know and love her and they reiterated their support of both children, their commitment to being involved in their lives whatever the outcome of these proceedings, and it is a mark of her love for the children that the aunt has sat through the entire final hearing and this judgment, which must have been incredibly hard at times, and she has played a really active role in framing the support plans and care plans, and helpfully found out what LM’s blood sugar levels were overnight between 5 and 6 June 2024. Their evidence was unsworn and not determinative in any way, but they provided a colour to MM and brought her alive and gave me an idea of what she is like now.

[21]MM’s Guardian was an impressive witness who was unwavering in her view that MM, sadly, could not return to her father. She was clear that MM needed more than good enough care and that LM, sadly, was not receiving good enough care from his father at this time. This was a view she reached after very careful thought and only after reflecting on the aunt’s final position.

[22]LM’s Guardian was very clear that LM has a good attachment to his father and it is in his best interests to stay at home. He is a vulnerable young man who will need help on the road to independence and adult life, and she was clear that he should understand that if MM does not come home it is not his fault, and even before the difficulties his father expressed in April 2024 in meeting LM’s needs, it would not have been realistic for MM to come home. She made it clear that the father had done absolutely the right thing to ask for help from the social workers in April 2024 when things became difficult for the family. Threshold

[23]I have an agreed threshold document and so the threshold for making a Public Law Order is made out. Welfare

[24]I look at all the circumstances of the case, and the children’s welfare is my number one concern and any delay for them is prejudicial to their welfare. I should not make an order for them unless it is better than making no order at all.

[25]I look at the children’s wishes and feelings in light of their age and understanding. LM had a brief stay in foster care right at the beginning of these proceedings, but since then he has been with his father with no order in place. He wants to stay with his father and has been anxious about the prospect of him not doing so. He loves his sister, but has expressed a degree of anxiety about how it would work to have her at home if she made further allegations.

[26]LM is able to report his sister’s feelings and says that MM feels frustrated when it is time to say goodbye and asks why she cannot stay and he thinks that she cannot be herself as well if she is not at home. MM wrote me a letter, and she says she wants to go back home to her father’s. She told the previous social worker she would feel sad if she did not go back to her father’s, sad for her father, who would miss her, and sad for herself. The final care plan records she does not talk to her stepmother unless specifically asked and the school records minor tension within that relationship. MM’s wishes and feelings have to be seen in light of her age and understanding, and she had not been told of the potential move to foster care prior to the final hearing. She comes across as a little girl who lives in the moment, and in her EHCP plan, which Mr Longe read to the court in closing, she seems to be functioning at the level of a much younger child. Her cognitive limitations are clear from the evidence and she is oblivious to the impact of what she said on LM. She does not have the ability to grasp all the complicated issues that this court must grapple with, but what is clear is how much she loves her father and her big brother and how vital those relationships are to her.

[27]I look at their physical, emotional and educational needs. The paediatrician looks at MM’s history of obesity and says she is at high risk of developing diabetes and metabolic syndrome and there are multifactorial issues in aetiology and at least partially her obesity could be explained by environmental factors and a degree of neglect.

[28]The guardian sets out in her closing analysis MM’s complicated history of idiopathic intracranial hypertension, her conductive hearing loss, the lymphoedema diagnosis that she had in relation to her foot in March 2021, and points out that although her weight has reduced she is no longer at risk of diabetes at such a high level, but before, when she was in the care of her father, had a long-standing history of obesity and being pre-diabetic. I know that MM had surgery on her left ear within the course of these proceedings and she is currently awaiting a hearing aid.

[29]The final evidence from the social worker about her physical needs is that she needs a lot of help building her daily living skills and reminding about self-care. She needs reminding to shower and maintain her personal hygiene and is disorganised with her belongings and lacks an awareness of road safety. She is not able to manage her needs independently.

[30]I look at MM’s educational needs, and she goes to [redacted school] and is in year 7. She is in a small classroom and has a bespoke curriculum for her learning needs. She has an EHCP plan that stipulates a certain level of support whether she is in a specialist school or not. The local authority assure me that this plan does not need to be redone if she moves local authorities and that it travels with her and it is important that wherever she goes she has this. The psychologist thinks she is most probably a child with a moderate learning disability and recommended a full Risk 5 assessment. If the psychologist still recommends this, having been asked a question about the most recent view of the (place name given) educational psychologist that this was not necessary, I would ask that the local authority pay for this privately and that this is something which court appointed expert clearly recommended a long time ago and unless it is clearly unnecessary that should be done. The psychologist concludes that MM is a very vulnerable girl with a significant amount of needs. She is unable to understand in age-appropriate ways the social and behavioural boundaries and understanding risk with regards to sexual feelings and behaviour.

[31]In the final evidence the social worker spoke to the head of special educational needs, who explained that MM had been on report due to unsettled behaviour prior to Christmas and Ms M, the special educational needs teacher, said they had made a connection between MM’s behaviour being more unsettled after seeing her father and LM. There is a note in the school records where the aunt questioned why the father did not come to meetings and the school responds he is to be spoken to outside the meetings. It is clear to me that MM has a high level of educational support and needs someone to be proactive in making sure she gets the support she needs.

[32]I look at her emotional needs, and the guardian explored the impact of the allegations that MM made with her father. Her father said he hopes the passage of time means that she will forget these things. The guardian was worried that this might lead to the topic being unspoken which could result in MM carrying a significant emotional burden alone, especially because she has never retracted her allegations.

[33]The psychologist took the view that MM’s emotional needs were not being met while she was in her father’s care because he at the time was also emotionally struggling. The social worker highlights the complexities of MM’s emotional needs. MM does experience mixed emotions, she says, and needs support in identifying and naming her emotions. Depending on how she is feeling the school has strategies to support her and she receives mentoring twice a day and is given rest breaks from lessons if she experiences overwhelming emotion.

[34]The aunt’s email to the school suggests that MM was uncomfortable with her father calling his new wife “mum” and it seems that maybe the introduction of this important new person into the family could have been more sensitively managed from MM’s perspective. The school entry in October 2023 says that:

“MM randomly called my name and said ‘my dad is an idiot I think, I’m going to spend more time with my brother because he’s going to be more interested in his new wife than me and my brother’.”

Whilst I am sure that is not true, it shows how MM has responded emotionally to a new person within the family and how things look from her perspective.

[35]The aunt and her partner say that they accept that MM’s needs are greater than those of a 12-year-old child and she requires more supervision and intervention than their own children did at her age and I think that is a realistic and evidence-based observation.

[36]The psychologist says MM is happy in the moment but lacks insight into her deeper emotional and attachment needs. The psychologist gave oral evidence that when thinking about attachment relationships it is important to look at what the level of care is. MM is placed at risk if boundaries are not maintained and that compromises the attachment relationship because then they cannot have confidence that the parent can manage the risk.

[37]The emotional needs that MM has include the need to live without her mother, and it is striking that she asks her father, with Ms K there:

“Do you still remember my mum?” and the father appeared taken aback, but then replied: “Yes, I remember her”

. It was clear from the witness box he is still deeply moved by the memory of his first wife and he finds it hard to talk about her and I hope that he will seek some bereavement support, because MM and LM emotionally both need their wider family to keep their mother’s memory alive for them and to remember the times with their mother and explore the emotional significance of their loss, and I hope, too, that MM’s aunt might play a role in this by making sure that MM has some pictures of her mother and maybe some special objects to remind her of her mother and take with her wherever she lives and wherever she goes.

[38]The social worker gave evidence that the father would leave Ms N to deal with the emotions, but I think it is probably hard for MM and Ms N to do this because they need to develop that relationship of trust over time.

[39]The needs of LM are also quite significant. There is a lengthy history of LM’s unmet health needs. He has been classed as clinically overweight from a young age and there is ongoing concern about his diabetic diagnosis. The guardian’s final analysis sets out the difficulties that LM has had with managing his diabetes. For instance, she says there are reports of him turning off his monitoring device to avoid high readings and he has required hospital admissions in May 2022 and April 2023 due to high sugar levels. It became increasingly clear during the hearing that the father, Ms N and LM were not managing his diabetes together very well. LM’s phone links to his Dexcom device. This is the device that monitors his glucose levels continuously. His phone was either lost or stolen at the end of April 2024 and the father had a call from the diabetes clinic nurse some time in May 2024. It is not clear whether that is before or after he went to [redacted] on 9 May 2024, and he told the nurse that LM had lost his phone and he gave evidence that LM needs to do the finger prick test instead if the monitor is not working. Ms Roberts asked him:

“LM doesn’t like doing the finger prick machine. Who encouraged him to do it?”

The father replied:

“He always carries the machine to school and the support workers at school encourage him to test two or three times a day, but he wouldn’t do it at home”

. The strong impression I got is the family had no clear idea of how often LM was testing after his phone was stolen and what his blood sugars were. The father could not answer my question about the last time LM had tested prior to the morning on which the father gave evidence. He said:

“It was done at home, it was done, but I don’t know which date”

. So it seems to me there is no clear structure for regular testing or monitoring of glucose levels. The father said: “I was talking to him in the mornings every day but he would refuse to check his sugar levels or give the readings”.

[40]When we adjourned overnight on 5 June 2024, the aunt asked LM to test, and his blood sugar levels were at 23.7 and then only marginally lower at 19.4 the next morning, 6 June 2024. The school email of 6 June 2024 reports the impact of high blood sugar on LM. He was in the exam hall sitting his GCSEs when they recall he was behaving strangely. LM reported to them his sugars were very high that morning, 19.8, and he had eaten very late last night, 10pm chicken curry with potatoes and roti. He had taken his medication but reported he had not brought his kit to school. When he collected his bag from the library he did have his testing kit but did not have the needles to administer insulin and he reported he had only one unit of insulin but did not normally administer unless his levels were above 14. His needles are at home but no more insulin”, they record.

[41]When the social worker contacted the diabetic team during the final hearing they were informed that the glucose levels were a non-compliance issue for some time and that readings for LM had always been in the concerning zone in the past months and that dad and LM had struggled to manage his diabetes. They said that LM can be provided with a receiver to replace his Dexcom device, but it is a confused picture that suggests to me that LM’s diabetes is poorly managed without a clear testing routine and a clear structure to make sure he has got his emergency kit in his school bag, and the management of this very complex condition seems somewhat chaotic and it is possible, of course, that this may be a contributing factor for why LM has wet the bed and maybe some of his tiredness, and possibly behavioural changes arise from poor glycemic control. Ms N has not been trained in diabetes management, and that is of particular concern, because the father was out of the country between 9 and 24 May 2024 and so there was no trained adult helping LM with his diabetes during his key GCSE season.

[42]I know that the family have tried to help LM lose weight but, despite his gym membership, he has not gone for the past six months and behavioural changes seem short-lived. Ms N has now joined the family and cooks home cooked meals, but LM of course can buy his own food outside the home and this was an issue right back in the first social work assessment in which Independent social worker observed the father would need to be careful about what money LM has, and the up-to-date evidence suggests that he is unable to make healthy food choices for himself and still buys takeaway food. The father did not know how much LM buys takeaways when he was at court. The strong sense I get is that LM’s particular health needs are not being well met.

[43]In terms of his educational needs, LM has a below average verbal ability and his intelligence scales were found to be in the lower extreme range. His attendance at school has been 69% at the time of April 2024 and the father did not have a clear system for making sure medical appointments were treated as authorised absence, giving a confused account of how absence letters were given to the school. The social work records show that LM is tired at school and the local authority were worried that he has been out and about in central London making content for his social media videos, returning at 9 or 10pm.

[44]He has a Behaviour Support Plan at school periodically. There was an instance in December when he was excluded for truanting and vaping in the toilets. That was December 2023, and as a keen user of the internet, his use of social media has sometimes placed him in difficult situations at times. In March 2023 he posted footage which referred to a local stabbing and led to individuals making threats against him. Again in October 2023 the social work chronology records concerns that he was in a social media doughnut eating challenge, eating as many doughnuts as possible, which obviously causes concerns, given his glucose levels and diabetic presentation.

[45]I look at his behavioural needs, and the social worker records she heard from the father on 29 April 2024 when he was feeling that he could no longer care for LM. The social worker explained in the witness box this was because LM was arriving home late and that the father could not manage the behavioural issues and felt he could no longer cope with LM not answering his phone or telling his dad where he was. She recalls there were issues around personal care, not helping with household chores, not cleaning up after himself or with the laundry and being verbally and physically aggressive when they tried to get him up in the morning or implement boundaries.

[46]The family agreed a Behavioural Support Plan which was completed on 1 May 2024. The independent social worker notes that LM’s behaviours reflect the difficulty of a young person who has had inconsistent parenting and lacked boundaries for much of his childhood and says that it is not unusual for a parent to face resistance when attempting to implement boundaries for a young person mid-adolescence. The social worker is concerned that educationally the father has not gone to open days with LM or helped him formulate a clear plan for college next year, and I note that the father travelled to [redacted] during his GCSEs. I do understand, of course, that the father is concerned about his own mother who had a stroke last year, but it did strike me as a somewhat odd time to leave the country when LM was sitting important public exams and with the final hearing a matter of weeks away. The father struggled to put himself in LM’s shoes to describe why a transfer to college might be difficult, even when Ms Roberts clearly spelt it out and said what factors might make it challenging for LM.

[47]Emotionally LM has lower than average self-esteem, says the psychologist, and at the time she met him elevated levels of anxiety and depression and some difficulty with moods. LM also has a need to be physically safe, and I have already talked about him being out and about in London filming relatively late at night without the father knowing when he is coming home or who he is with. He also has a friend who is aged about 25 to 30 who DJs at weddings and takes LM along to play the drum. LM plays the drum and his playing of the instrument is part of the ceremonial aspects of the wedding. This man is South Asian by background and the father says he was introduced to this man’s wife and children when LM was dropped off one evening, but there was an upsetting incident where LM returned home hysterical, saying that this man had taken his mobile phone, which led to a search of this man’s car. Now it might be that this gentleman is entirely benign and trustworthy, but what struck me is how naïve the father was at not really investigating who this man is and whether he has got any criminal convictions. When asked if this man might use drugs, the father replied:

“I did not feel that he was such a person”

. He could have maybe attended one of these wedding gigs with LM to see what was happening or have made more enquiries, because LM strikes me as a vulnerable and trusting young man and maybe not as streetwise as other 16-year-olds.

[48]Drawing together LM’s needs, he needs a high level of parenting, and although the father takes the view that he can do some things independently, he does, the social worker thinks, need help to manage his health needs and get to school on time and that that was in part the role of the parent.

[49]Each child has particular housing needs. They really need a bedroom of their own at this age, and the father has tried to look for local properties but it is expensive and difficult. The social worker gave evidence that he had completed an application for social housing with the floating support worker, that he has got a housing officer and is on the waiting list. It seems to me that housing is a key issue, and if there was a larger property it might be easier for each of the children to have their own space and for family members to come and stay. But that does not, in and of itself, remove the need for supervising the children. Even if you lived in a mansion, one child could still go into the other’s room and a family member staying over, even with a larger property, does not mean that the role of a parent no longer is of importance.

[50]I look at the likely effect on the children of a change of circumstance, and these children have both had a lot of change in their lives. Their mother died in 2020 and they were separated; MM lived with her grandparents and LM at home. They have had the introduction of Ms N into their lives, not to mention social workers and guardians. The view of MM’s Guardian was that any rehabilitation at this stage is at risk of breaking down, and that would be devastating for MM who has already experienced so much change and instability. This was a view shared by LM’s guardian, and it is important for these two children, who have both had a lot of destabilising change in their lives, to build their future on a firm foundation.

[51]I look at their age, sex and background. They are of South Asian heritage, they are raised in the [redacted] faith and both speak [redacted] and English fluently. An important part of their background is their relationship with each other, and their sibling relationship is a complex one. When MM’s Guardian speaks to the school in early 2024 the teacher described MM as being “obsessed” with LM. Another word that has been used to describe her relationship with her brother is that she “idolises” him. In discussion with Ms L at school the social worker says that MM would write letters to LM expressing her love, and in one of these letters she stated that LM violated her and she forgives him. I have seen this letter, written by MM in September 2023, and it is not clear whether it is the original allegations or exactly what MM is referring to. Her admiration for LM appears now to have transferred to a female friend of his whom she refers to as a sister and writes about in her worry book at school. Ms L said that MM constantly talks about this female friend and presents as attached to her.

[52]The psychologist reports that it is difficult to understand why MM made the allegations and suggests that MM does not really understand sexual relationships or boundaries and it might take her longer with her learning difficulties to take this on board. The psychologist gives evidence that:

“When I say MM is oblivious, that is exactly what I mean. She doesn’t understand for her brother the implications of the allegations that she made or why it might impact on their relationship”

. This chimed very much with the way that her aunt and the aunt’s partner described her. The psychologist thinks that the risk of placing the siblings together, with the possibility of MM making other allegations, might lead LM to live in fear and put a strain on the relationship, at least from LM’s perspective. The aunt told the social worker that LM had expressed to her some anxiety about MM making further allegations and the social worker in the witness box also reflected this, as did the guardian.

[53]The sibling relationship is, of course, one of the most enduring and long-lasting relationships in one’s life, and if MM cannot become fully independent as an adult she will need her big brother to look out for her and her interests and so the rebuilding of this relationship needs really careful care and expert thought and I am glad that Dr [redacted] will start to supervise the contact between the children if they are not living together and look at what support they need in their interactions with each other. What does LM do, for example, if MM wants to give him a big hug, and how can he understand how MM might interpret things and what he would need to do to keep himself insulated from any suggestion of impropriety? I hope that this therapeutic work will help them navigate their relationship, and it seems to me that there needs to be a clear plan to develop their sibling relationship. If I have understood the Supervision Plan correctly, it suggests reviewing this in line with the LAC review every six months, but I think it might need more frequent care and revision, to start with at least.

[54]The wider family care very much for MM and LM, and although there have been periodic strains in the relationship between the father and his in-laws the family have offered him clear commitment to support both MM and LM no matter where they are. The maternal aunt gathered offers of help from her siblings and her parents and it is really important that the maternal family remain in the lives of these children. Not only is it a link to their mother, but it is also real support and genuine love and concern and I am glad that the Care Plan and the Support Plan were shared with the aunt and that she has been able to offer respite care and a really careful transition plan. It is imperative, really important, that MM and LM are invited to family weddings and parties and religious events and celebrations on both sides of the family. I know the paternal aunt is going to be assessed to help with contact, and their support, too, needs to be really carefully harnessed.

[55]I am going to look at the harm which the children have suffered, or are at risk of suffering, and both children in the past have suffered neglectful parenting and that risk remains in the future unless the father and Ms N can parent differently. LM is at risk of harm if his diabetes is not properly controlled and monitored. Of course, high or low blood sugar poses a real risk of harm to his health. Both of the children are vulnerable in very different ways, LM because he strikes me as somewhat naïve and not as streetwise as some children his age, and his health conditions increase his vulnerability. MM is very vulnerable due to her cognitive profile.

[56]I look at harm arising from future allegations, and in the past MM has made allegations against LM which I did not find made out on the evidence before me. The reason that the aunt and her partner, in part, felt they could no longer have MM living with them was because of the risk of future allegations in the medium to long-term. They told me of an occasion where MM referred to their son being naked, when in fact he was wearing shorts and sliders. When MM refers to hugging her brother in bed it is not clear if she means in the bed, on the bed, or whether she has simply misunderstood, and this illustrates the risk of misunderstanding and confusion in how MM communicates. The independent social worker highlighted the risk of harm to both children if MM made further allegations. She said “if a child makes allegations, whether or not they are true, then of course the local authority have to investigate them, and that is going to be unsettling for the household and unsettling for LM, whether true or not”. The psychiatrist took a similar view. There is a risk that MM will make further allegations and this will not be helped if MM and LM are in the same house. She could say things, because her level of education around sex and puberty and healthy relationships is lacking. There is a need to increase her education and understanding about such thing and to increase the understanding of the impact of allegations on the family. She may also say things and may feel that she is not believed, and that is another risk, so educating her and helping her understand sexual abuse and assault is very important.

[57]These children remain at risk of neglect and emotional harm and so I now look at how the father can mitigate those risks. Not all of the recommendations have been followed through and, of course, that would have helped the father to meet his children’s needs, so it is regrettable that he has not been offered that parenting course and there is still a lack of certainty about the Risk 5 assessment for MM. That is regrettable. However, since July or August 2023 two family support workers, have visited the family home each week. One works with LM and the [redacted] speaking worker works with the father and Ms N. MM’s guardian took the view that a parenting course might help the father become more authoritative but that is not sufficient to help him meet the competing needs of both children and improve his level of good enough care. The social work view is that, to his credit, the father has engaged with the family support sessions and he has worked about healthy eating, online safety, boundaries and guidance. However, she observes he has made little progress and the work has not been reflected in his parenting of LM. Father struggled in oral evidence to explain what he had learned during these proceedings. Although it is regrettable that he has not yet had bereavement counselling, that cannot solely be blamed on the local authority, it is his responsibility, too, to act on any needs that he has that put him in a better place to parent. Although it would be better if the father had had that parenting course, he has had extensive support from the local authority and one-to-one work may be more effective in many ways than a group course.

[58]In order to meet the children’s needs, those looking after them need to be completely open and honest with professionals and the father says in the witness box he is willing to do whatever course or intervention is necessary, and he has always been incredibly polite in court; let the social workers into his house; and this is not a man who is in any way difficult or obstructive. However, the social worker gave evidence that those weekly sessions he has been offered by the floating support worker are not always possible, because he will say he needs to work, or has to cancel, and MM’s Guardian reflects on the father’s ability to be open and honest with professionals because it is particularly important in this case when what MM says is open to interpretation.

[59]The father told the professionals that his marriage was arranged during the time he went to [redacted]. Ms N gave us a different account, suggesting that there had been ongoing discussions between the family for several weeks and so the guardian shares the local authority’s concern that the father may not be completely transparent and she describes this as a pattern or a thread running through his parenting. LM tells the independent social worker he felt unhappy that his father did not tell him about the marriage until after the wedding and the father struggles to share information in a timely way and maybe did not think of the impact of his marriage on the children or on these proceedings in advance.

[60]This pattern of not sharing information soon enough continued even after the guardian had filed her final analysis. Although, of course, the father should be commended for seeking help from the social work team in April 2024, he did not inform the social worker as those worries about LM’s behaviour began to get worse. He told me that he thought things would get better. The social worker told us in the witness box that the request could have come sooner and guidance could have been sought on what this older friend in LM’s life was about and of this bed wetting, for example, as it happened before things escalated and the independent social worker raises concerns about the extent to which he was entirely open and honest with Ms N about why social services were involved and the level of each child’s needs before she came to the UK. It will undermine the father’s ability to care for the children if he cannot be completely proactive in sharing information with the social worker and with the maternal family. I think he struggles to do this, not because he is a dishonest man but because he takes the view that things may just resolve themselves and is somewhat passive.

[61]If the children were placed together the father would need to make sure that he could meet each child’s needs, and they are very different and complex in their own ways. I first look at his ability to meet LM’s needs, and it seems to me that the father may have underestimated the complexity of LM’s needs with his health and educational needs that I have already spoken about not being fully met. The guardian was struck when she visited the family home that the father thought that LM being 16 was more independent than she thought he could be expected to be, and she was worried that his needs should not be dismissed or overlooked because he is older, and takes the view, which the social worker shares, he still requires a high degree of parenting. The father said:

“Because he is 16 he can do small things for himself like putting the washing in the washing machine and when support is needed I remind him, I remind him of his medicine. If there is anything else he needs to discuss about his health I am there to support him”

. However, later it transpired in evidence that he struggled to get LM out of bed in time for school and would leave the medication out for LM, who did not always take it. In my view, LM’s needs are not fully met at the moment and I have talked already about his diabetes being poorly managed.

[62]The father, of course, if he were to meet both children’s needs would need to do so consistently, and so since the fact-finding judgment we have had, a trial run of his ability to meet both children’s needs when MM comes to visit. I know he took the comments made in the fact-finding judgment seriously and at the time he said he was going to stop working so he could care for the children. He said he accepts the findings of the court and openly said he struggled after his wife died and accepted he could have done better with online safety and matters around puberty.

[63]Has he been able to put this change into practice? The independent social worker took the view that immediate unification would carry the risk of breakdown. She said there has been a trial run of overnights with MM in her father’s care since December last year and that gives us a good idea of how it might work if both children were in his care fulltime and whether he has learnt how to do things differently.

[64]I look at online supervision, and the aunt in February 2024 said MM took her tablet to overnight contact and recorded a video of her dancing inappropriately with inappropriate music in the background. Her teacher on 3 May this year said that MM showed her a [redacted] video on YouTube which was not age appropriate and showed guns and women with very little clothing on and dance moves. The independent social worker explained that from reading this it probably sounds worse than it is. She said: “I am not saying it is not serious and that children should see Bollywood films which are inappropriate, but these are things that families watch together and I can see why”, she said, “the father may not have viewed it with concern and may have needed to be more cautious about what she was watching and recording”.

[65]The issue of online supervision is also still live in relation to LM. LM receives money into his bank account which he tells his father came from social media and he received a recent social media payment of about £450. The father is not certain where he got this money from and whether it was from social media, so this is an area where the father struggles having oversight of LM’s online use, and LM, of course, is tech savvy and knows how to use the internet but his father does not and he does not know the content of LM’s social media videos and account and what financial gain LM may be receiving from his social media work. The father tells the psychologist he does not know about parental controls on the computer or phone or how to set them up. However, he has had a support worker whom he could ask, and in light of the court’s findings that he had not given his children boundaries and supervision of their use of technology this is concerning. The social work evidence and the father’s evidence suggests that he has been working with a floating support worker about online safety but he has struggled to do things differently on the ground.

[66]In relation to supervision, this is a need that the father needs to meet for the children, and the independent social worker records that the father and Ms N understood that MM needs to be fully supervised on overnight contact visits. In oral evidence she said that during the assessment she had explored with them at length the fact-finding judgment and the concerns arising out of it and both of them were very clear it was important for the children to be supervised at all times.

[67]I have the Working Together Agreement dated December 2023 where it is recorded:

“It is agreed that whilst MM is having contact at the family home they will be supervised at all times by father or Ms N.”

The social worker said she did not think this document had been translated and she gave evidence she did not spell out step by step to the father and Ms N what she expected by way of supervision, but that she emphasised the children should not be alone together and should have an adult present with them. She accepted her discussions could have been more detailed and she could have broken things down. She said in March 2024, prior to those overnight stays, there was a discussion about the children not spending time on their own. When the social worker saw MM on 3 May 2024 her direct work suggested that MM and LM were spending unsupervised time in his bedroom and in the meeting on 28 May 2024 LM told the social worker that MM does not listen to father and does what she wants and she locked herself in the bathroom and had refused to come out when he asked her and that MM went into his bedroom and refused to come out when asked by the father. The father acknowledged that he and Ms N do not always go into LM’s bedroom and sometimes MM was alone in his bedroom for one or two minutes. The father added that MM and LM were siblings and they need to spend time together without feeling censored or it would impact their relationship. The psychologist was asked to comment on this, and she replied:

“It is a concern. It is not clear how the father followed things through if MM would not listen to him.”

[68]In his discussion with the guardian on 30 May 2024 LM says that MM does come into his room but he is usually out during the day and so contact could take place at home. The CPOMS record dated 5 May 2024, that is the school record system, records MM as saying:

“She went in to hug her brother in the mornings if he was awake, he would come and say: ‘Come here for a hug’ and I would go to his bed and he gives me a hug, and I asked if this happened when MM goes to her dad’s” records the teacher “and she said ‘yes if he’s awake and not on his phone he would hug me’ and then she went on ‘I put my hair in a bun and he said I look really cute and wanted a photo of me and he sent it to his friends and they said I looked cute’.”

[69]The father accepts that the children were alone for a couple of minutes in LM’s room but said that LM’s room door is always open. Now I am not going to make a finding about exactly what MM said and whether it is true in relation to giving her brother hugs, and LM has given his view to the guardian that he does not agree with what she said. However, the independent social worker considered this updating information and says:

“in my opinion if the information shared by MM about unsupervised contact is accepted by the court this would be concerning on two levels, firstly, it points towards the father and stepmother not being vigilant in complying with the expectations of professionals and consequently placing each child at risk, and secondly, if it were the case that the information shared by MM is not correct then this would be concerning and militates against a successful reunification plan”

. In oral evidence the psychologist said if it was true she had concerns about the children being in the same room, and if it was not true she was concerned as to why MM would say that. “What was she trying to achieve by saying that?” the psychologist wondered. If MM has no understanding of why it is inappropriate then that would concern her too, regardless of whether it is true or not and whether she is saying it for attention. The psychologist has said she was concerned about what is going on in MM’s head and what she has been exposed to.

[70]In evidence the father said he did not understand that MM cannot go into her brother’s room even for a few minutes, but his answers were evasive and avoidant when the Working Together Agreement was put to him. He did accept he could read the document in English in response to Ms Stamford and he could not explain why he did not ask the social worker if he was unclear about whatever was expected of him. He struggled to grasp the point that it was for both children’s protection that they should not be left alone together. It seems to me that by the time MM stayed overnight both the social worker, past and present, and the independent social worker, had made it clear that the children need to be supervised at all times. It is not clear how much the father understood, and it would certainly have been better if that Working Together Agreement was translated, but although he may not have fully understood what was required of him and its significance, it did place both LM and MM at risk of their time together being misunderstood, misinterpreted or misreported. They both need the father to have a clear grasp of the reality of what has happened in order to protect them both. As a matter of parental common sense, if a child has made allegations against their sibling that have necessitated police involvement and a fact-finding hearing it might be considered very wise to take steps to make sure that there was no scope for it happening again.

[71]I look at boundaries and routine, and the school records note the concerns of the aunt which she raised with the school in January 2024. It records “the aunt phoned MM at eight o’clock one evening and she told auntie she had not had dinner yet so can’t go to bed yet and this seems to happen a lot. The aunt spoke to dad and asked him about the routine with MM as it helps her to work hard to get that routine going.” Dad was not able to abide by this, was the school’s impression. The aunt and her partner said in the witness box of course there could be some misunderstanding about whether MM had eaten dinner at eight o’clock, but I note in passing it is not the only time that concerns have been noted. There is the email from the school on 6 June 2024 where LM reported he ate dinner at 10pm. During the unannounced visits on 3 and 10 April there were concerns about the lack of routine and structure, with MM saying she had not eaten dinner at 7pm and they were still asleep in bed and had not had breakfast around the second social work visit at 10am. As the social worker says in the final statement, “this is a concern about routines”. The father said MM had on the second visit had her tea and gone back to bed because it was a holiday but was still in her nightdress at 10am. I was not reassured he had a firm grasp on what the routine was.

[72]I look at how Ms N can help the father in meeting the children’s needs, and English is not her first language which makes it harder for her to take the children to appointments and advocate for them about school, and she is going to do her ESOL course but that has not yet taken place. Although the local authority has made arrangements for her to take part in meetings, including the Child in Need Review meetings for LM, their perception was that she does not participate actively and usually scrolls through her phone and they are concerned that the role of parenting children with complex needs is an onerous one for her and she is not able yet to fully invest in all aspects of their care. The local authority sets out that the difficulty lies in her not engaging actively with professionals and providing basic responses, so the local authority do not have a full picture of her role.

[73]The social worker acknowledged in the witness box there may be a cultural aspect to this, that Ms N deferred to the father, but as a result the social worker was not able to understand what support MM would get, and Ms N was unable to elaborate when asked. The social worker described a meeting in March where the father took the lead in conversation and translated for both of them. She said:

“I tried to speak to Ms N directly but either she would say ‘no’ or give basic responses”

. The social worker accepted it was not very satisfactory and it might have been better if she had had a one-to-one conversation with Ms N and an interpreter earlier in the process of this case. However, this was a perception shared by MM’s guardian, who could get very little information from Ms N and who thought her responses were very basic and surface level, and indeed, this is how she came across in the witness box. Overall, the assessment of Ms N is that she comes across, says the social worker, as ambivalent, she does not want to overstep the mark so her engagement is quite limited and I did, said the social worker, put this down to cultural factors.

[74]The final social work analysis is that the social worker agreed with the independent social worker that Ms N respects the father’s role and would not interfere with his primary responsibility to make decisions for the children. An example of this is her yet to have that diabetes management training, so when the father was away there was no adult available to monitor LM and help in case of medical emergency.

[75]The next topic I want to look at is how she is able to help with boundaries and the emotional support of the children, and MM reports to the school on 30 April that she does not like it when her stepmum tells her off, and she mentioned some other things she finds difficult. I note that the aunt’s partner also made reference in his statement to MM’s reaction to boundaries being put in place and that she can react very badly and sometimes violently. The independent social worker noted MM’s reaction to her stepmother which she thought meant that MM would not welcome attempts to put boundaries in place. This, of course, picks up on the evidence that MM will not even listen to her father when he told her to leave LM’s room, which LM reported. Ms N is trying to put in place boundaries, but it is difficult because it takes a while for a child to get used to a step parent and it seems to me that the father does not have all the emotional skills to help the children manage this new dynamic. He is passive and does not always look at things from the children’s perspective.

[76]The independent social worker saw a warm interaction between family members when she visited, but she noted that LM spoke mainly to his father and sister and not to his stepmother. Dr Diriwari submitted it is unfair because Ms N has not been fully assessed as part of the psychological assessment. However, the reason the independent social worker carried out an extra assessment was because of Ms N arriving in the UK. Ms N has met the guardians, she has met the social worker and they have assessed her ability to help the father in their final evidence. The fact that there has not been a psychological assessment of her is immaterial because there is no suggestion she has any particular cognitive needs which require special consideration and she simply has not been in the UK long enough to build up an attachment relationship with the children.

[77]I look at whether help from others would help the family, the father and Ms N to meet the children’s needs, and the suggestion was made that another family member could come and live with the family to make sure the children are supervised at all times and help the father and Ms N. I remember when the mother died the father had two aunts come over and help from [redacted] and this, from the evidence, was a source of tension for MM because she told the school that one of them called her “an idiot” and “a monkey” and prodded her stomach and said she was fat. Regardless of the literal truth of this, what is clear is that MM is communicating she did not like having her aunts around. There is now consistent evidence that MM finds it really hard to accept boundaries and discipline no matter who is telling her. The social worker said she would be worried about giving a parenting role to another family member, so I do not think that adding another adult to the household, either temporarily or more permanently, would help. It is another figure of authority when there are two adults in the house who can assume this role already. F is the children’s father. He has parental responsibility, he has had the care of the children through their formative years and it is primarily his role to exercise his parental responsibility to discipline and support the children. I gained the impression that he has delegated some of that to Ms N already and I fail to see how delegating it to another adult could possibly assist.

[78]I accept the social work evidence that the father has tried to take on a more active role, but he has been lax in his parenting for such a long time, she says, that LM is trying to assert his identity. It seems the same is true of MM, who is pushing against those boundaries, as teenagers do, and the parenting history that the children have made it harder for adults to impose boundaries, and asking a third adult to do so is not a realistic solution, it would not create a stable environment for either child.

[79]To draw all of those strands together and look at the holistic ability of the father to meet the children’s needs, the independent social worker sadly concludes that he is struggling to meet the needs of LM, so the likelihood of him and Ms N looking after two troubled children should be viewed with considerable pessimism.

[80]In her final evidence she set up the transition plan for the gradual reintroduction of MM. However, she said, having read the updating evidence, “I have come to the conclusion that MM should not return to their care. He is struggling with LM and the introduction of MM with complex and challenging behaviours would not be in either child’s interests”. “It is hard to see”, she said, “how he could manage the care of both children if he cannot do so for those short periods of contact”. The psychologist shared this view. She said “LM’s mild behavioural problems have been increasing over time. He has become more defiant. Unless we can nip them in the bud, to add MM would increase the pressure on the parents”. She said that “even with LM on his own there are concerns about diabetes and his education, so the risk of the two children being cared for together would increase the risk of placement breakdown and would not be in the best interests of either child”. The clear consensus of all professionals and the guardians who have both worked with the family is that the father and Ms N could not meet both children’s complex needs, even with the support of that loving wider family who are so willing to help them in any way they can. Sadly, that is a view I, too, am driven to on the evidence. Analysis of the options

[81]Everybody agrees that for LM a supervision order is best. I agree.

[82]I look at the options for MM. If she and her brother were with the father they would be together, they are deeply loved by him, the father is in a better place than he has been and has the support of Ms N, it is what MM wants, this is a father who does his very best, he has a supportive wider family and is open to help, he has a strong bond with LM and he has supported his two children through the loss of their mother and this long and difficult court process and it is clear that MM absolutely adores him.

[83]The disadvantage of them both being with their father is that LM has a high level of needs that are not currently met fully, Ms N’s role is not yet clearly established and her relationship with the children is in its early days. She struggles to give a clear picture of what she does and both her understanding and the father’s is at a surface level, and as time has passed and MM has spent more time at home those concerns about the lack of routine, lack of boundaries, lack of supervision have become more apparent. There is a degree of anxiety for LM, should his sister come home, and a breakdown of that arrangement would be absolutely catastrophic for both children. It would mean a new school for MM and potentially a house move if they could find a larger property.

[84]If MM were to be in foster care the local authority would have parental responsibility, her high level of needs would be met, she could still have generous time with her family and that move to whatever arrangements and support she needs when she hits 18 could be managed and structured for her future life. There are, of course, disadvantages to foster care. She no doubt will be very upset at not being able to stay with her aunt or go to her father’s. It is a big change for her. It would no doubt need a new school, it would be an immense sadness to her family and it would mean that the local authority is having a high level of involvement in her life. However, having looked at all the evidence, I am driven to the conclusion it is both necessary and proportionate to make a care order with the plan of MM being in foster care. Contact

[85]I look at the contact proposals, and MM’s guardian took the view that to start with contact between the father and MM needed some professional support because the father might struggle to answer questions about the outcomes of this case when pressed by MM, but she thought in the long-term it could be supervised by a family member. The Guardians both thought that MM and LM needed some separate time together, supported to help them rebuild their relationship. LM’s Guardian stressed it was important for a social worker to observe the dynamic between them and give LM advice on how to respond to his sister. I am very glad that the local authority have found Dr [name redacted] and her team ready and able to support this process. I would hope that it could be as natural as possible and that MM and LM could have some days out together over the summer holidays and not be restricted to being in a contact centre. Similarly, I hope that her time with her father and her brother fortnightly for three hours on a Saturday could move to a more relaxed environment. Of course, the local authority should provide a professional interpreter whilst it is being professionally supervised, but I am hopeful that the paternal aunt or maybe the maternal family might be able to take over that supervisory role so it can be as relaxed as possible.

[86]I am very grateful to the aunt offering monthly to open her home to MM from Friday to Sunday for a sleepover and for her to enjoy time with the family with whom she has lived for over a year now, and I do hope that festivals, birthdays, weddings and celebrations will be things that the children are invited to and enabled to attend because they are part of a very loving wider family community. Conclusion

[87]Drawing the strands of this judgment together, I make a Care Order for MM and a Supervision Order for a period of 12 months for LM. I approve the Care Plan and the Supervision Plan with which I have been provided. The local authority must get a transcript of this judgment, to be anonymised and published in the usual way, and I give permission to disclose this judgment and the fact-finding one to anyone providing therapeutic support for the family or working with them more broadly in a social work context.

[88]I want to thank at the close of this judgment the social worker, who I know has worked really hard to come up with a careful, robust Care Plan and Supervision Plan, often at court working through lunch with Mr Longe and trying to get the best for these children. I am really glad she is going to remain the social worker and I thank her for her commitment to both children. She is dedicated and hardworking and I hope she will continue to exercise those skills in the best interests of these two children.

[89]I want to thank both guardians, who have really got to know these children and have such a clear idea of their needs and their emotional world. They could not have had better guardians and representation for both this hearing and the fact-finding which came before it, and both of these children have been well-served by their excellent representatives and two guardians who have been their voice in court. It was very moving to listen to LM’s guardian describe how LM looks up to his solicitor as a member of his wider community and someone who shares the same faith, and that is a really good role model that he has provided for LM and I am glad that he has had somebody who he has respected and trusted to help him through this difficult court process.

[90]I want to thank counsel, particularly where we have been able to have a continuity of representation, and each of the representatives for all of the assistance and guidance that they have given me.

[91]I thank the aunt for sitting through this final hearing and judgment and for her and her partner thinking so carefully about the care they could offer these children and the support that they can offer the family. Her involvement has made a real difference to this case, she has looked at the plans for the children and made really practical suggestions about how she and the loving wider family can help. She clearly understands these children’s needs and is a powerful and impressive advocate for her niece and nephew, and I trust that she will be able to remain fully involved going forward because I think everybody could do with an auntie like her.

[92]I thank the father and Ms N, who supports him, for sitting through two long judgments from me with great dignity, with great courtesy, and he clearly adores his children and has done everything in his power to ask for them to come home. I hope if the children read this judgment later in life what will shine through for them is how greatly their father loves them. He is a kind and gentle man who has done the very best for them and has had a difficult time himself. They must know and understand if they read this that his dearest wish was to care for both his son and his daughter, but sadly that is not possible, and they must understand, LM and MM, if they read this judgment that none of this was their fault and sadly sometimes what is best for children is not what they or their parents would want. - - - - - - - - - - - - (This Judgment has been approved by the Judge.) Digital Transcription by Marten Walsh Cherer Ltd 2nd Floor, Quality House, 6-9 Quality Court, Chancery Lane, London WC2MM 1HP Tel No: 020 7067 2900. DX: 410 LDE Email: info@martenwalshcherer.com Web: www.martenwalshcherer.com