Re J, K and L (application for non-agency adoptions) [2025] EWFC 157 (B)

The judgment was handed down at 2.00 p.m. on 16 May 2025 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail.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 and legal bloggers, must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so may be a contempt of court.All parties names have been anonymised, the applicant prospective adopters are referred to as PA1 and PA2, birth parents referred to as M and F, and the children’s names have been replaced with made up alternatives.Re J, K and L (application for non-agency adoptions)[2025] EWFC 157 (B)
IN THE FAMILY COURT SITTING AT READING
Date 16 May 2025
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION AND CHILDREN ACT 2002 AND IN THE MATTER OF [JAMIE], [KIT] and [LUCY]
Before: HHJ Vincent
Between
PA1ApplicantPA2ApplicantA LOCAL AUTHORITYRespondentMRespondentFThird RespondentJAMIE, KIT AND LUCY(by their children’s guardian GUY BRAZIL)Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Respondents
Matthew Brookes-Baker, instructed by Boardman, Hawkins & Osborne LLP, solicitors for applicant prospective adoptersTom Wilson, instructed by the Joint Legal Team for local authorityJayne Harrill, instructed by Barrett and Thomson, solicitors for motherThe third respondent is Jamie’s father. He attended the hearing as a litigant in person. for in personIan Robertson, of Griffiths Robertson represented the childrenHearing Hearing dates: 12, 13, 14 and 16 May 2025
Approved Judgment

HHJ Vincent:

[1]I am concerned with three children. [Jamie], who is ten, [Kit], who will be nine next month, and [Lucy], who is six and a half.[2]The children’s mother is [M]. Jamie’s father is [F]. He holds parental responsibility for Jamie.[3]Neither Kit’s father nor Lucy’s father have parental responsibility for them. They have not been present in their children’s lives.[4]In July 2019 the local authority issued care proceedings due to concerns that the children’s needs were being neglected and that they were suffering emotional abuse. The children were placed with their maternal grandmother.[5]In October 2019, the Court made interim care orders, and the children moved to live with the applicants. The applicants were their foster carers.[6]On 30 July 2020 the Court made care orders to the local authority, together with placement orders, authorising the local authority to search for prospective adopters for the children, and if a match was found, to place the children with those prospective adopters. At that time Jamie was five, Kit was four and Lucy was twenty months old. The local authority had not formulated a plan for how the search for prospective adopters was going to be conducted, but one of the potential options was that the children would remain with the applicants and they would in due course apply to adopt them.[7]In June 2020 the applicants had registered their interest in adopting the children with [regional adoption agency].[8]This was not the first time they had registered an interest in adopting. The applicants had applied in June 2018 to [X] County Council to become approved adopters, but the assessment was negative. The reasons given were(i) a concern in respect of PA1’s existing caring commitments to her grandchildren;(ii) PA2’s difficult relationship with his parents and sister; and(iii) the impact on PA1 of her own childhood on how she approaches parenting and relationships. The assessor wrote, ‘whilst PA1 is a rescuer and in her own words ‘spoilt her children with love’, my concern is that she does not actively listen or review her actions as to deciding what is the best way forward.’[9]In December 2018 PA1 and PA2 applied to Z Fostering Agency to be assessed as foster carers, and were approved as such in May 2019. It is their evidence to me that it had always been their hope and intention to provide a permanent home to the children in their care, as their adoptive parents. From the day the children came home to them, this was their fervent wish.[10]Within a very short time of them registering their interest with [regional adoption agency], the adoption assessment was paused. This was because an anonymous referral was made in July 2020 to the NSPCC (then referred on to the local authority). The referral was said to be from a neighbour, and described, ‘abusive shouting and what sounds like slaps and a child screaming and being yanked indoors and screaming and crying which I can hear inside my house’. The referral described hearing the sound of a ‘distressed scared child who is being dragged and slapped mainly by the foster father, who is extremely loud and shouts abuse a lot.’[11]When spoken to, Jamie is reported as saying that PA2 would shout, and hit him on the bottom, and that he would hit Kit too. Jamie is reporting as saying that sometimes PA2 ‘has kind hands and sometimes he does not’. The applicants suggested that the boys’ account came from ‘the little stinger game’ which they played to encourage the boys to get dressed quicker, and that they were not ‘full on or hard slaps, but rather little taps’. In their evidence to me they said this was harmless fun that they would play with the children after they had a bath or shower and were running about the house, amidst much laughter, and needed to be chivvied along to get into their pyjamas.[12]The local authority carried out a section 47 investigation and concluded that the foster carer’s conduct had not been appropriate. However, on balance it was thought better not to inflict the upheaval of a placement move upon them, noting the significant positive aspects for the children of the placement, in particular the improvements to the children’s behaviour, presentation and emotional regulation. It was recommended that the children should remain where they were, but additional support and training was needed to ensure better behaviour management strategies were in place.[13]The adoption assessment was delayed further, to January 2021, to enable the applicants to undergo the recommended training. In March 2021 [regional adoption agency] concluded that they would not progress the assessment of the applicants as agency adopters. The main reasons given were:(i) a concern that they received significant support as foster carers and would struggle to manage the children’s behaviours without that support, particularly as the children entered adolescence;(ii) that financially they would be worse off as adopters than foster carers, probably meaning both of them would have to work, which would make caring for these children difficult and impact them.[14]In the light of that assessment, the local authority reviewed the options for the children, but concluded that they should remain together, and should remain living with the applicants.[15]In September 2021, a further anonymous referral was made to the NSPCC. The report reads:
‘Since lockdown, there has been an escalation in the way the children are spoken to, shouted and hit by the foster father. Within the past two weeks, the referrer has overheard the foster father shouting ‘you stupid little cunt’ at one of the children. He is described as ‘overly aggressive, constantly’
. On the weekend of 04/09/2021, the referrer overheard shouting (the foster father), followed by smacking sounds and a chid crying, which was followed by more shouting. This happens regularly, and other neighbours have told the referrer they heard it also, and will report this. The foster mother is never, ever heard shouting at the children, but she does not intervene either.’[16]The NSPCC once again made a referral to the local authority. Their social worker Mr E spoke with the boys. Kit is reported as having said, ‘PA2 has mean hands’, but neither he nor Jamie reported anything specific to their social worker when he spoke with them. The local authority requested that Z Foster care carried out a ‘standards of care’ investigation. The children presented as happy and content and appeared comfortable and safe. The applicants described some of the challenges in caring for the children, particularly at bedtimes, and accepted they did sometimes raise their voices, but said they had never smacked or hit them, nor used the language described.[17]This investigation concluded in November 2021. The allegation was recorded as unsubstantiated (neither proved nor disproved). It was noted that PA1 and PA2 truly loved the children, wanted the best for them, and were committed and dedicated to doing anything asked of them so that the children could remain in their care.[18]It was determined that further support to manage the children’s behaviour and instil safe care practice would come through monthly visits and weekly phone calls, and that the applicants should repeat some of the training they had undergone in respect of managing challenging behaviour and therapeutic parenting.[19]A month later, in December 2021, Jamie came to school and told the teacher that PA2, who he called daddy, ‘ had asked him to get out of the car and then got angry and pushed him out of the car. He said he fell out of the car and hurt his knee.’[20]A further standards of care investigation was undertaken, and concluded in February 2022. It was found that PA1 and PA2’s explanation was plausible – they said the boys had unplugged their seatbelts before the car engine stopped, PA2 was cross with them. PA1 went round to Jamie’s door to open it, not realising he was leaning against the door, PA2 reached out to hold onto him, but he fell out of the car as PA1 opened the door. Neither Kit nor Jamie had mentioned that they thought PA2 had pushed Jamie, so PA1 and PA2 did not know there was a need to reassure them. The applicants were reminded to report all incidents. It was confirmed that they would attend therapeutic parenting training.[21]In May 2022 there was a permanency planning meeting and the local authority decided to support the applicants to adopt the children on a non-agency basis.[22]On 7 September 2022 Jamie had a nasty scratch on the bridge of his nose that was caused by the applicants’ dog.[23]At the time PA1 reported that they had a difficult summer, with two bereavements in the family, including the death of her mother. Kit’s medication needed review. The children had done some holiday clubs but Jamie had misbehaved at one of them and they could not go back. Jamie had been in hospital for six days with cellulitis in his eye. Lucy’s behaviour was becoming increasingly challenging, ‘more pinching and snatching and copying the boys’ behaviour.’[24]On 7 November 2022 Kit told a teacher that his daddy hurt him, he was cross and had pushed him into the coats and he banged his side. Kit and Jamie told their social worker Mr E that Kit was being naughty and had hurt Lucy, so PA2 had picked him up and moved him to the stairs. In evidence to me PA2 and PA1 separately said the boys had been fighting, they ‘would not stop’ and so PA2 had picked up Kit and carried him to the stairs. There are coat pegs on the wall. They were not aware how Kit can have become injured, it was suggested to me maybe he had caught his side on a door handle. They said Kit never said anything at the time, they only found out after Kit had said something at school the next day.[25]On 24 March 2023 the applicants notified the local authority of their intention to adopt the children. The adoption assessment was commenced by [regional adoption agency].[26]On 6 May 2023 Jamie was bitten by the applicants’ dog. He had stitches under anaesthetic, causing him to be admitted to hospital for two days. The dog went to live with PA1’s son. Following a further standards of care investigation, which concluded in June 2023, there were further discussions around how to manage the children’s needs as well as having PA1’s son’s three dogs to stay with them during the working week. Some concerns were expressed in the report that the applicants were somewhat defensive about the dogs and the need for them to have them in the household.[27]This incident and its investigation led to a delay with the adoption assessment.[28]In December 2023, the children’s school gave a negative reference to the adoption assessor. It was said that PA1 had described Lucy as ‘a nightmare’ to teachers, when Lucy was there. This echoed comments made the previous month by the SENCO teacher to the children’s social worker Mr E, reporting that PA1 had described Kit as a nightmare, and that the applicants needed a lot of support with their parenting, which for these particular children was ‘really, really hard’.[29]Following the school’s report, another standards of care investigation was initiated. On 7 December 2023.[30]Within the reference, the teacher wrote:
‘What I am not seeing, is how adjustments have been made to accommodate ideas etc that were given. I am concerned about the challenges of 3 children with a history of trauma and their additional needs. I would be concerned to see any support taken away because they are such challenging children and they need a lot of support with parenting 3 children with such high needs. [PA1] at times has looked exhausted and worn down particularly from Lucy’s behaviour.’
[31]By mid-December 2023, the local authority, in conjunction with [regional adoption agency], decided that it could no longer support a plan for the applicants to adopt the children. This was said to be due to the concerns raised by the school reference, a concern that the placement may not be stable due to the numbers of standards of care investigations, and the local authority’s view that the applicants needed ongoing professional support to meet the children’s needs, which was felt best achieved through long-term fostering.[32]The decision was taken that an application should be made to the Court to revoke the placement order. In its letter to the applicants, the local authority informed them that they remained entitled to apply for adoption orders of their own accord.[33]Over the next couple of months the care plan that evolved was for the children should remain with the applicants as their foster carers. The rationale behind that plan was for the children to remain in a household where they were loved, and where they had made considerable progress, but where their carers could continue to receive a high level of support from the local authority.[34]On 4 March 2024 Jamie is recorded as saying at school that PA2 would smack Lucy on the bottom if she was in trouble, and he repeated this to Mr E who visited him at home shortly afterwards.

The current proceedings

[35]On 6 March 2024, notwithstanding they no longer had the support of the local authority or [regional adoption agency], the applicants submitted their applications in these proceedings for adoption orders in respect of all three children.[36]There were a number of court hearings thereafter. Guy Brazil was appointed to act as the children’s guardian. The local authority was directed to file Annex A reports, and to issue its applications for revocation of the placement orders (submitted on 22 August 2024.)[37]On 16 October 2024 Lucy made an allegation of sexual abuse. This triggered investigations by the local authority and by the police. Ultimately, the police decided to take no further action, and the local authority has not sought any findings of sexual abuse within these proceedings. However, on 18 October 2024 it was this allegation that was the trigger for the local authority to remove the children from the care of the applicants.[38]The children have remained in the care of the single foster carer who they were placed with at that time. Within the foster care logs there are notes that she has made in which she records the children as saying on occasions that PA2 used to smack them or hit them, but these allegations have not been the subject of any investigation.[39]The applicants issued an application for an injunction which was adjourned to this final hearing. The application effectively stands and falls with the application for an adoption order.[40]I met the parties for the first time at the pre-trial review on 15 April 2025, when directions were made about filing updating evidence. The applicants had issued a further application for an independent social worker to carry out an assessment, but that has not been pursued at the final hearing.

Parties’ positions at the final hearing

[41]I am grateful to the parties’ representatives for their assistance in this difficult case.[42]The applicants, represented by Mr Brookes-Baker, pursue their application for adoption orders in respect of all three children. It is evident, and nobody in the case denies, that they love the children beyond measure. They would like them to be returned to their care as soon as possible. Their intention and hope remains that the Court recognises the family unit they have established in the five years that the children were in their care. They wish the court to officially make them the children’s parents, and their intention is then to bring the children up in their family and to care for them for the rest of their lives.[43]The local authority’s plan is not just that it does not support adoption with the applicants, it is not currently seeking to place the children for adoption at all. The local authority considers that the children’s welfare needs require that they remain in long-term foster care, so that they continue to receive the benefit of a high level of intervention and support from the state throughout their minority. In the circumstances, it seeks revocation of the placement orders.[44]The local authority, represented by Mr Wilson, opposes the applications for adoption orders. The local authority acknowledges the applicants’ love for and commitment to the children, and the many significant strengths in the care that they have provided to them since 2019. The local authority says that it has worked as hard as is possible to support the children remaining in the applicants’ care, first as prospective adopters, and then, when it was apparent that they would continue to need a high level of support to meet the children’s needs, through long-term fostering.[45]The local authority says that although there has been much to praise and appreciate, over the years it has become increasingly apparent that the applicants were having difficulties managing the children’s behaviour, and were unable to provide them with the individualised, therapeutic, parenting that they require as a result of their early life experiences of neglect and trauma.[46]Jamie’s father, F, has attended every day of the final hearing. He has had little involvement in Jamie’s life recently, but would like to change that. In attending every day of the hearing he has shown his commitment to Jamie. In an email to the court he has said that he does not support the children being adopted by the applicants, and would prefer them to stay with their current carer. He would like to be able to write to Jamie and if it were possible to see Jamie, he would very much like this to be arranged.[47]Represented by Ms Harrill, the children’s mother M has attended not just every day of the final hearing, but every hearing throughout these proceedings. At the same time she has been involved in a separate set of proceedings concerning her youngest son S, who is six months old. Only a couple of weeks ago, those proceedings concluded with the Court making a supervision order to the local authority. S has remained in her care throughout.[48]M has a fifth child, T, who is four and a half. T has been adopted. M is in touch with T’s adoptive family.[49]M does not support the application for adoption orders. She agrees to the placement orders being revoked. She would like the children to remain in long-term foster care. She sees them three or four times a year, she would like that to increase, ideally to once a month, but she is willing to go at the children’s pace.[50]The children’s guardian, Guy Brazil, was their guardian in the original set of care proceedings. He was S’s guardian in the proceedings which recently concluded with a supervision order. He is represented by his solicitor, Mr Robertson. The guardian too opposes the applications for adoption orders, and supports the local authority’s applications for revocation of the placement orders. The law Revocation of a placement order

The law

[51]Providing a child has not been placed for adoption by the local authority, the local authority may apply at any time to the Court to revoke a placement order (section 24 Adoption and Children Act 2002 (the “2002 Act”).[52]The starting point is section 1 of the 2002 Act which provides that whenever a court is coming to a decision relating to the adoption of a child, the court’s paramount consideration is the child’s welfare, throughout his or her life. The question for the Court is ‘whether it has been shown that it is in the child’s interests for the placement order to be revoked’ (Re C (Revocation of Placement Orders) [2021] 2 FLR 763; Re N (Children: Revocation of Placement Orders) [2023] EWCA Civ 1352. In considering this question, the court must have regard to the matters set out at section 1(4) of the 2002 Act; the welfare checklist.

Adoption

[53]Section 42 of the 2002 Act sets out the requirement that the children must have lived with the adopters before the adoption. There are different criteria depending on whether the application is made pursuant to a placement order, if it is made by a step-parent, or a current local authority foster carer. In the case of these applicants, the requirement is that the children must have had their home with the applicants for not les than three years (whether continuous or not) during the period of five years during the application (section 42(5) 2002 Act). The applicants meet the other criteria set out in the 2002 Act in respect of age and residence.[54]The applications to adopt are ‘private’ or ‘non-agency’, and made pursuant to section 47(1) and 47(2) of the 2002 Act, which provide as follows: (1). An adoption order may not be made if the child has a parent or guardian unless one of the following three conditions is met; but this section is subject to section 52 (parental etc. consent). (2). The first condition is that, in the case of each parent or guardian of the child, the court is satisfied— (a). that the parent or guardian consents to the making of the adoption order, (b). that the parent or guardian has consented under section 20 (and has not withdrawn the consent) and does not oppose the making of the adoption order, or (c). that the parent’s or guardian’s consent should be dispensed with.[55]The children’s parents do not consent to the making of the adoption order, so (a) and (b) do not apply. I can only make the adoption orders sought if I am satisfied under subsection (c) that the parents’ consent should be dispensed with.[56]Section 52 of the 2002 Act provides that the Court can only dispense with parental consent if satisfied that ‘the welfare of the child requires the consent to be dispensed with.’[57]Again, the court’s paramount consideration is the children’s welfare throughout their lives (section 1(2) 2002 Act) and the court must have regard to the welfare checklist in section 1(4).[58]Mr Wilson has provided a helpful summary of the leading cases, which I repeat and adopt here.[59]The court's paramount consideration must be the children's welfare throughout their lives (s.1(2) ACA 2002). The court must have regard to the welfare checklist in s.1(4) ACA 2002. In short, the court's approach must be to 'undertake a global, holistic evaluation of each of the options available for the child's future upbringing before deciding which of those options best meets the duty to afford paramount consideration to the child's welfare' (Re G (Care Proceedings: Welfare Evaluation) [2014] 1 FLR 670, at [50]).[60]It is well-established that adoption is an exceptional order and that the test for severing a child's relationship with their family is a strict one (YC v United Kingdom (Application No 4547/10) [2012] 2 FLR 332, at [134]). 15. This is reflected in the Court of Appeal's decision in Re B-S (Adoption: Application of s 47(5)) [2014] 1 FLR 1035, which summarised the Supreme Court's decision in Re B (Care Proceedings: Appeal) [2013] 2 FLR 1075 as follows: ‘The language used in Re B is striking. Different words and phrases are used, but the message is clear. Orders contemplating non-consensual adoption - care orders with a plan for adoption, placement orders and adoption orders - are "a very extreme thing, a last resort", only to be made where "nothing else will do", where "no other course [is] possible in [the child's] interests", they are "the most extreme option", a "last resort - when all else fails", to be made "only in exceptional circumstances and where motivated by overriding requirements pertaining to the child's welfare, in short, where nothing else will do ".[61]In Re W (Adoption: Approach to Long-Term Welfare) [2017] 2 FLR 31, McFarlane LJ clarified the application of the phrase 'nothing else will do'. At [68], he explained that: ‘The phrase is meaningless, and potentially dangerous, if it is applied as some free- standing, shortcut test divorced from, or even in place of, an overall evaluation of the child's welfare, Used properly, as Baroness Hale explained, the phrase "nothing else will do' is no more, nor no less, than a useful distillation of the proportionality and necessity test as embodied in the European Convention and reflected in the need to afford paramount consideration to the welfare of the child throughout her lifetime (ACA 2002, s 1). The phrase 'nothing else will do' is not some sort of hyperlink providing a direct route to the outcome of a case so as to bypass the need to undertake a full, comprehensive welfare evaluation of all of the relevant pros and cons ... ... Once the comprehensive, full welfare analysis has been undertaken of the pros and cons it is then, and only then, that the overall proportionality of any plan for adoption falls to be evaluated and the phrase 'nothing else will do" can properly be deployed. If the ultimate outcome of the case is to favour placement for adoption or the making of an adoption order it is that outcome that falls to be evaluated against the yardstick of necessity, proportionality and "nothing else will do".

The evidence

[62]I have read and considered all the documents to which I have been directed within a voluminous bundle, extending to over 2,000 pages.[63]For the local authority I heard evidence from Ms F, who prepared the parts of the Annex A reports relating to the applicants. She initially completed them in February 2024, and they were then updated in April and July of 2024 (although she did not meet with the adopters or the children after 2 November 2023). Since providing the last updated report in July 2024, she has not had any involvement with the case until coming to give evidence.[64]I found her reports and her oral evidence to be detailed, considered and balanced. She identified significant strengths in the applicants, notably their unwavering commitment to the children, their support for their education, and encouragement in activities outside school, the way the children’s achievements were valued and celebrated, their ability and dedication to advocating for the children and getting the right support in place for them. However, her analysis was that the applicants’ approach to parenting was not therapeutic, which is what she considers the children need, and that although the applicants had been on many training courses, but they had not been able to make sense of the training in a way that enabled them to parent the children therapeutically.[65]Mr E was the children’s social worker in the first set of proceedings and has continued to be their social worker while they have been the subject of care orders. Because of the high level of investigations and the local authority’s assessment of the levels of support needed, he has visited them very often, he estimated around once every three weeks for the past five years. I place significant weight on his evidence, because he has over this time had the benefit not just of spending time with the children, but of building a good relationship with the applicants (which they accept was a good working relationship until the children were removed from their care in October last year), and of having an overview of all the professional involvement. He has a 360 degree perspective.[66]His evidence was clear, well-reasoned and balanced. He was taken to parts of his evidence where he had been very positive about the applicants and about the great progress the children had made in their care. It was suggested that this was inconsistent with his present position. However, when one looks at the evidence as a whole, and each piece of evidence in the context of the evidence as a whole, it is clear that there was an evolving position, which is coherent and understandable. I find that Mr E, in conjunction with other professionals, was throughout seeking to balance a complex situation. The children had arrived into care presenting with a great deal of challenges for any carer. They had a high level of need, and in many respects those needs were being met by the applicants. There was good reason to invest heavily in maintaining the placement, because the children were so evidently loved and treasured, and were making very good progress in many areas. There was a real risk that they would suffer a great deal should the placement break down. The local authority was committed to implementing its plan of adoption. However, the more that process was delayed by the various investigations that had to take place, and the issues that seemed to be thrown up within some of those investigations, the greater was the anxiety that it was a plan that may prove difficult to implement.[67]PA1 has been described as a person who wears her heart on her sleeve and that did come across. Her love for the children is not in doubt.[68]I found that she was doing her best to be truthful and honest and she was ready to put her hands up to times when she had in her words not done things ‘correctly’. However, it was striking that when asked to reflect, her response came again and again that in future she would act in a way that would not cause her to be in a position where the local authority or teachers might not find fault with her. She would not make herself vulnerable to criticism, but she did not seem herself to have reflected about why a concern had been raised, what the impact was on the child, and that she had developed a strategy to not do it again.[69]For example, in respect of saying to teachers that one or other of the children had been ‘a nightmare’ this morning, she remained defensive and said this was just the sort of thing lots of parents said, that she might often use code, referring to Lucy as ‘madam’ rather than by her name, so ‘madam’ has been causing all sorts of trouble this morning. The issue with this is not that she has not got the hang of a particular style of language that professionals use, but that these particular children, with the experiences they have had, have led to them having low self-esteem, and it is damaging to them – more damaging than it might be to other children – to hear their carer speak in negative terms about how difficult they have been, how tough the holidays have been to look after them, that they are a nightmare, because it reinforces their own sense of themselves as difficult, unwanted, or less than other children.[70]A number of professionals have noted that PA1 has at times struggled to manage the children. In his evidence Mr E described times when Lucy would be ‘climbing on [PA1], hitting and kicking her and grabbing the glasses from her face and throwing them to the floor, just because I was trying to talk to her.’ PA1 did not deny this might happen, but said that Lucy was a child who needed a lot of attention.[71]The overwhelming impression I had from PA1 was that she loved these three children unconditionally. This is a great strength, an ability to convey to these children that they are loved, no matter how they behave. Of course that is to be commended and has no doubt been of great value to the children. However, while an element of parenting is about providing that level of reassurance, at the same time, it is a parent’s job to help their child to learn how to regulate their emotions and their behaviour, and how to put boundaries in place that will ensure that they are physically and emotionally safe. In tolerating the behaviour, but not managing it, PA1 is showing the strength of love and acceptance, but at the same time, is causing difficulties for Lucy, because she is not helping her to regulate her emotions and her behaviour. In describing this scene, and another when Lucy was running ahead and into the road and PA1 did not seem to have the ability to manage that safely, Mr E was showing me evidence that supports the weight of the professional assessments that while there are positives in PA1’s parenting approach, there are also elements of significant concern.[72]I do not doubt that PA1 would willingly do anything that is asked of her in order to have the chance to keep the children with her. She has been a fierce advocate for the children to get support they have needed, in particular to manage some of the challenges arising from their diagnoses of ADHD. She has pushed to get EHCPs in place, to get support from CAMHS, and she has gone on every single course she has been required to do. The issue that remains is that in terms of the parenting that the children might need, and the support she might need to provide that, she was not able to articulate what she saw as the children’s particular needs. She said that it would be whatever she was told was required. But if an adoption order is made then there would be no person to be visiting in the way that Mr E has as the children’s social worker, nor her supervising social worker from Z.[73]I had no doubt that PA2 also loves the children and that he too would do anything to have them return to his and PA1’s care and take their place back at the heart of the family. I have been shown a large number of photographs of the children with PA2, PA1 and PA1’s older children, their partners and children. In the photos whether on holidays or day trips or at home, inside or outside in the sunshine, playing, sharing meals, hugging, they are sitting or standing closely together, and looking as though they are having a wonderful time.[74]As with PA1, while I did not doubt PA2’s commitment to the children throughout their lives, and for example by attending all the courses and training he was required to, I found that PA2 was not really able to reflect that there had been anything about his parenting that might need to be adapted in order to meet these particular children’s needs.[75]This is a particular concern of both Mr E and of the guardian. In his final analysis, Mr Brazil wrote:
‘PA2 was able to talk about Lucy's recent unsubstantiated disclosure which led to the children being removed. He denied anything inappropriate happened or has ever happened during his care of the children. PA2 did acknowledge that he would have to change his approach to the physical and tactile nature of his relationship with Lucy. It was positive to hear this recognition as this has clearly led to some confusion and very concerning statements by Lucy. PA2 felt that these changes would need to be made because they have allowed themselves to be vulnerable to these allegations being made. However following my interview I was advised by Mr E that in a contact on the 26th of March concerns were raised about Lucy kissing PA2 on the bare stomach and arms so it appears that this is still something they have been unable to achieve during contact time to date. 25. This is an example of something that would need further support and training at the very least and there were several other areas identified before the children were removed where the local authority and Z fostering felt PA2 and PA2 would need continued support and training. However PA2 and PA1 seem to believe they have undertaken training in the past and do not need any further support or guidance. This appears to be fuelled in part by a general mistrust and loss of faith with agency staff and social workers that they have worked with to date and feel they have been unfairly assessed.’
[76]Considering his accounts of some of the incidents that led to investigations over the years, PA2’s parenting style sounds quite hectic. He described ‘the stingers game’ they played, when the children were coming out of the shower and running about the house, having to be chased or in his words, ‘chivvied’ to get their pyjamas on. He and PA1 described bedtimes as very challenging, with the children fighting a lot and getting out of bed. There were a number of descriptions of one or other of the children seemingly in one room and fighting, and only when things had escalated so that one had hit the other, he would come in and pick one or the other of them up and remove them (he did subsequently said this only happened once but his first, instinctive answer when questioned about this was that this was a way that he would use to intervene). Both he and PA1 have said that they did shout at the children to be clear with them.[77]I did not get the sense that either PA2 or PA1 had developed the sorts of techniques that Mr E and Ms F described, to parent in a way that created a ‘low demand’ environment, which I understood to be one which acknowledges that these children have a low tolerance than other children in many ways, and so need a calm and less busy environment with fewer distractions and more routines, more calm, and carers who can set clear boundaries and find ways to de-escalate, rather than letting things get out of control then intervene at quite a stressful level.[78]Like PA1, PA2 gave a strong impression that he will love these children no matter what, and that he would not let anything get in the way of that. This is commendable, however, I was concerned that it has prevented PA2 and PA1 from thinking about the practicalities of adoption.[79]PA2 was asked questions about their financial situation. This was something raised back in 2018 the first time they put themselves as adopters, and has been raised by professionals again. If the applicants have all three children in their care but no fostering allowance, their household income will be substantially lower. Given the children’s level of need, it would not be feasible for PA1 to go out to work to supplement their income. PA1 and PA2 wanted to become foster carers because they saw it as a means to becoming adoptive parents to children who could benefit from their love and care. They have not done it to earn an income. Nonetheless, when asked about how they might manage, PA2’s answer was not convincing. He said only that the financial deficit could be met, and that they had avenues of support that they would explore, for example applying for carers’ allowance and child support.[80]The children’s mother M gave evidence to me by reading out a letter that she had prepared herself the night before. It must have taken some courage to read it out.[81]She talked about the journey that she has been on and how she has learned to take responsibility for her past actions. She goes on to describe each of the children and to set out all the reasons why she does not support the application for adoption. It was a moving and powerful statement. What she has set out in her own words is consistent with what the professionals are saying.[82]Finally I heard from Mr Brazil. It is rare in my experience to have had continuity of professionals that we have had in this case. Like Mr E, Mr Brazil was involved in the first set of care proceedings for the children. Unlike Mr E he was not visiting the children regularly when they were not the subject of proceedings, but he was T’s guardian and S’s guardian, and has been consistently appointed in these proceedings which have continued for over a year.[83]He had not revisited any documents that he or anyone else filed in the first set of proceedings, but to be fair to him, none had been disclosed into this bundle, which had more than enough material within it to review and consider.[84]I found his analysis to be comprehensive, well-reasoned and balanced. He maintained his recommendations under cross-examination and explained why in his view, in the particular circumstances of this case, he does not support the application for adoption by the applicants.

Welfare checklist analysis

[85]I have had regard to each of the factors on the section 1(4) welfare checklist.[86]Starting with the children’s ascertainable wishes and feelings regarding the decision (considered in the light of the child’s age and understanding). Mr Brazil reports that while the children have engaged well when he has met him and have enjoyed playing games with him and talking about what they have been doing, they have tended to shut down or ignore attempts to engage in any wishes and feelings work with him. The children have consistently said they would like to go back to PA1 and PA2’s. Of course that is understandable, that has been their home and that is a place where they belong and where they have lived life as a family.[87]At the same time, the children are not of an age where they would necessarily be able to understand the implications of being adopted by PA1 and PA2 and all the consequences that would have for the rest of their life. Their love for PA1 and PA2 is not in question but their wishes and feelings cannot be determinative of an application for adoption orders.[88]The court must consider each of the children’s particular needs (1(b)), and the child’s age, sex, background and any of the child’s characteristics which the court considers relevant (1(d)).[89]All three children suffered significant harm and disruption of their care when they were very little. They were exposed to significant domestic abuse and their basic needs were neglected. They each have a diagnosis of ADHD and have exhibited significant behavioural challenges to their carers. They have all had difficulties regulating their emotions, can fight with each other and can be hard to manage, not always doing what they are told. PA1 and PA2 have described how bedtimes and getting them ready for school and out of the house in the mornings could be challenging to manage.[90]Jamie is ten. PA2 described him to me as loving and friendly, that he loved cuddles and hugs. He is less keen on football and outdoor sports but likes gaming. His mum M said about him, ‘Jamie can be challenging when he is trying to express his emotions. He is an incredibly kind, caring and clever young boy who can talk to you for ages if it’s a topic he wants to discuss.’[91]Jamie found mainstream school too much and is currently at an alternative provision. It is likely that he will need to attend a special educational needs school.[92]PA2 described Kit as a very energetic little boy who loves any sort of sports but especially football. Kit’s mum said that he is ‘a cheeky, active ball of energy that is eager to please and wants to show you everything, he is football cray and likes to test the boundaries. He is loving cuddly and has the potential to thrive.’ Mr E has expressed a concern that Kit may not always feel his voice is heard, citing a time when he spoke to Kit in the light of allegations made, and he was doing the ‘SAFE hands’ work with him. He reported, ‘Kit told me yesterday that it definitely happened when I was completing the SAFE hands work with him, as if to question whether I believed him or not. It was very strange because he stood up, looked me in the eye and told me that it happened.’ This is a concern shared by M, she said to me, ‘I feel because he is sensitive some of his feelings were dismissed and he should be encouraged to say how he feels.’[93]PA2 described Lucy as a bubbly little girl, who loves arts and crafts, playing with dolls, and swimming. He said that Lucy wants to get in the midst of things, wanting to do wat her older brothers were doing. Lucy is described by her mum as ‘a bright confident young girl who can be defiant, stubborn and is strong willed. She .. is eager to learn and please.’[94]All three of the children need stability, security, and to live in an environment of calm, consistency, and ‘low-demand’ to enable them to settle, feel safe and feel that their carers are attuned to their needs. If children grow up in an environment where they feel understood and listened to, then they develop the skills themselves to attend to their own feelings and emotions, and this helps them learn to understand and regulate the behaviours that come as a response.[95]The children have experienced very significant disruption to their lives twice over. First when they left their mother and grandmother, and then, having settled into a new family where they called their carers mummy and daddy, being removed suddenly in October 2024. They are likely to be confused and unsure about what their future holds. Whether they remain in foster care or return to PA1 and PA2, they are likely to need a lot of reassurance that there will be no further disruptions to them. They will need support to understand and process the experiences that they have had in their lives so far.[96]The likely effect on the child (throughout his life) of having ceased to be a member of the original family and become an adopted person. The children have grown up with a clear understanding that they [have the same family name as each other and their mother]; they know who their mum is. At the same time they have called PA1 and PA2 ‘mum and ‘dad’, and at one point they were known at school by PA1 and PA2’s second name. If the children are adopted by PA1 and PA2 they will be whole-heartedly embraced as members of their new family for ever. Nonetheless, they will forever experience the loss of not having been raised within their birth family.[97]1(e) asks the court to consider any harm (within the meaning of the Children Act 1989 (c. 41)) which the child has suffered or is at risk of suffering. The children suffered significant harm when in the care of their mother, and, as she accepts and takes responsibility for, their early life experiences have shaped their whole childhoods and will likely continue to impact them for the whole of their lives. As a consequence they are particularly vulnerable and have a pressing need for stability and security. The applicants have no doubt that they can provide that stability and security through the unwavering love and commitment they have for the children.[98]However, having regard to all the evidence I have heard and read, I find that there is a real risk that an adoptive placement with the applicants could be subject to further disruption or even break down completely. The consequences for the children would be disastrous.[99]I accept that the applicants have absolutely no intention of that happening and they fully intend to stand by these children for the rest of their lives. However, the experiences of the past few years do suggest that the vulnerability is there.[100]Despite a huge number of training courses, online and in person, reflective conversations, and professionals’ meetings, the applicants do not appear to have adapted their parenting to the children’s needs in any meaningful way since the children were first placed with them. There is a wealth of evidence of excellent parenting, of affectionate and loving care, and challenging behaviour well contained. However, there is also the evidence of both PA1 and PA2 in their own ways becoming overwhelmed with the task, of not managing challenging behaviours well – PA2 by raising his voice or intervening by picking a child up – PA1 by appearing to have run out of ideas to manage behaviour and failing to intervene. A consistent theme raised by professionals is that in conversations around the allegations made or challenging behaviours, the applicants have been defensive, felt personally and unjustifiably criticised, and have not been able to reflect on ways in which they could adjust their parenting.[101]The children’s behaviours are likely to become more not less challenging as they grow and head towards adolescence.[102]Within the context of this style of parenting, the children have consistently made reports to teachers or other adults of incidents which have led to investigations. The children have continued to make allegations since they have been in foster care. I find that it is more likely than not that further allegations will be made. The pattern of allegations being made and investigated has caused significant delay and disruption to the children’s permanency planning. The children have had to have additional meetings with their social worker. The adoption assessments were started, put on hold, then commenced again.[103]1(f) asks the court to reflect on the relationship which the child has with relatives, with any person who is a prospective adopter with whom the child is placed, and with any other person in relation to whom the court or agency considers the relationship to be relevant, including—(i) the likelihood of any such relationship continuing and the value to the child of its doing so,(ii) the ability and willingness of any of the child’s relatives, or of any such person, to provide the child with a secure environment in which the child can develop, and otherwise to meet the child’s needs,(iii) the wishes and feelings of any of the child’s relatives, or of any such person, regarding the child.[104]In many ways PA1 and PA2 are able, and they are without question willing, to provide the children with a secure environment in which the children can develop.[105]PA1 and PA2 are now and will always be enormously important people in the children’s lives. They are the people they have called mummy and daddy for five years. They love them and feel treasured and valued by them. They are committed to them for all their lives. They have taken them on wonderful holidays and days out, put a whole host of memories in the children’s memory banks, taught them to become strong and independent swimmers who have achieved significant success, supported their interests and advocated fiercely for them.[106]However, for the reasons given, there are some questions about their abilities to meet all the children’s needs in the way that the professionals have identified their welfare requires. Mr E’ assessment is that the applicants’ strong and understandable desire to give the children a ‘normal’ life and feelings of belonging to a ‘normal’ family has given the children a great deal, but underneath it all, there is a lack of belief or understanding that the children need a more attuned and therapeutic way of parenting. They have not been able to make the transition from their birth family straight to a new ‘normal’ adoptive family, they have needed a different sort of parenting. In his evidence he said that at times he had conversations with PA1 which suggested she had some insight into that. In their final statement, PA1 and PA2 say:
‘I would like to add that we acknowledge that our use of the one combined toilet and bathroom is the way that many families with small children would do so, rather than as foster carers following appropriate safe care practice. We would like to add that we do understand how this has come about through the "blurring of lines" but would like to add that the fostering service and others need to acknowledge their role in supporting us to give the children as normal family life as possible, and the blurring of lines. All we have ever wanted to do is give the children a normal family life, always remembering their traumatic early start in life.’
[107]In his final evidence, Mr E said:
‘I understand that the applicants only want to give the children the best life possible, which is a private life, full of opportunity, away from the care system. However, the picture that it paints is a painful one of the applicants who appear unable to reconcile the children’s therapeutic needs with consistent therapeutic parenting by utilising the support and supervision of their fostering agency and local authority. Given the developmental profile of Lucy, Kit and Jamie, it is my assessment that the carers for Lucy, Kit and Jamie are going to need access to regular professional support and insight as well as high-quality systemic reflective supervision and high-quality systemic therapeutic training. They are going to need to work within a network of professionals, led by the child in care CAMHS team, in a therapeutic and consistent way.’
[108]When put to both PA1 and PA2 that this is what the children needed, they accepted it to a certain extent, but overall their responses suggested that they did not fundamentally accept it. PA2 said that in general, if the children were placed with another carer, that carer would need that kind of help, ‘they would be looking at things from paperwork and with a fresh set of eyes.’ But, he said, ‘me and PA1, because we’ve grown up with these children and know what to expect from them and where they are coming from, I’d say we would be strong enough and able to manage the children’s needs for the foreseeable.’[109]PA1 responded to the same question by saying that she herself was always willing to take on more information that helped the children, and that she had more than demonstrated that she was able to source the support that they would need. However, again, ultimately, the weight of the evidence from her, and from all the professionals, is that fundamentally she does not see a need to change the way that she herself responds to the children.[110]The children have a mother who loves them dearly. She has been on a remarkable journey. As she says herself, her journey still has a road ahead, and she recognises that she may make mistakes. However, she is willing to learn, to get better as a parent every day and to sustain the changes she has made.[111]At the moment she sees the children three or four times a year but is hopeful of seeing them more. She is the link to the children’s maternal grandmother, with whom the children lived when they were small, and who has continued to attend contact with her daughter. She is also the link to their half-sibling S, and to T, who has been adopted. She has a good relationship with T’s new parents. She knows that they are giving T the care that she deserves and that she was not able to giver her. She told me that they play T a voice-recording of her reading a bedtime story, have made her feel a part of their family.[112]PA1 and PA2 have said that they would support the children to have contact with their mother, and Jamie with F. I accept their intentions, and that there may be some support for this through post-adoption support services. However, again, the sense I had was that they would not necessarily be proactive in this, they told me they would do what was asked of them or what was thought appropriate, but did not quite seem to be in a place of articulating how they as the children’s new parents, would go about deciding what was the appropriate level of contact and how it should be managed.[113]In her letter the children’s mother says that she hopes she might one day have made so much progress that the children might return to her care. She herself does recognise that is not a realistic option at this time. She is at the early stages of a difficult path back to being a full-time mother, and must maintain her primary focus on S. The children have a very high level of need. They have not been in her care for a long time.[114]It is one thing to accept the children will not be living with their mother now or even for the rest of their childhood. But, if they were to be adopted, then that is a prospect that would never be available to them for their whole lives. This mother has made remarkable progress in her own parenting journey. She has shown maturity and insight into the children’s needs. She has been fully engaged in these proceedings and contact sessions have gone very well. She could continue to spend time with the children if they were adopted, but they would have another mother, and her relationship with the children would be on different terms than if they were in foster care.[115]The other side of this argument is that this situation could be said to condemn the children to remaining in long-term foster care for the rest of their childhoods, and to deprive them of the chance of the permanence and stability that adoption can provide.[116]Finally, in coming to a decision relating to the adoption of a child, a court must always consider the whole range of powers available to it in the child’s case (whether under this Act or the Children Act 1989); and the court must not make any order under this Act unless it considers that making the order would be better for the child than not doing so.[117]Currently PA1 and PA2 are not approved as foster carers and the local authority no longer support the children being placed with them as foster carers. The range of options available to the Court are to grant the application for an adoption order or to dismiss the application. If the application were to be granted, it is likely that I would invite the parties to work together on a transition plan to consider how best to support the children to return to PA1 and PA2’s care.[118]When considering the relative benefits and disadvantages of each option, we are often looking at two sides of the same coin. In this case, the high level of social work intervention can be regarded as both a benefit and a burden to the children if they were to stay in care. Conversely, the lack of such support were they to become adopted children moves them to the relative safety and security of a ‘normal’ life, but risks them losing the targeted and intensive multi-agency support that professional assessments over the years have clearly identified they need.[119]Adoption of these children by PA1 and PA2 brings with it the prospect of the children returning to a warm, welcoming and loving home, with which they are familiar, and in relation to which they already have a store of happy memories from the past five years. They would grow up knowing that they are loved and treasured by their carers, who would continue to do all they could to the best of their abilities to meet their needs.[120]They would belong to a family. They would be free from the risk of the stigma that can apply to children in care, and from the intrusion that having a corporate parent can bring, often characterised by frequent visits from a social worker to the house, and local authority involvement in decisions or incidents that other children can leave to the discretion of their parents, for example about sleepovers or school trips.[121]Their new parents would be their parents for their whole lives. They would be members of their new families for their whole lives. It would not be an arrangement that came to an end when they reached adulthood or finished education or when the foster carer gave notice on the placement. They would be supported through every milestone in their lives, long after they left home, and their children would be born into an existing family network of support.[122]The disadvantages of adoption by these applicants is that the children would be severed from their birth family. They would lose their second names. Their birth mother (and in Jamie’s case, F) would no longer have parental responsibility for them. It is right to note that PA1 and PA2 have said that they would continue to support contact between the children and their mother, and maternal grandmother, and no doubt would also be willing to explore contact between the children and T and her adoptive parents.[123]The high level of support that the children and carers have received would not continue at the same level if the children were to be adopted. PA1 in particular has been a powerful advocate for the children, and could be counted on to continue to advocate for the children to receive support around their educational, developmental, social and health needs. However, they would not have the level of support that is provided on an ongoing basis as part of the implementation of a care plan. They would not have regular visits from a social worker, certainly not at the frequency that Mr E has been visiting. PA2 and PA1 would no longer have a fostering supervising social worker to discuss and reflect on situations with as they arose. They would not have the benefit of CAMHS for children in care.[124]In the particular circumstances of this case, the major disadvantage to the children of adoption by PA1 and PA2 is the likelihood, as I find, that the children would continue to receive the same sort of parenting that they have received in the past, that this would not consistently meet the children’s complex and high level of need. I find that this risk is likely to increase as the children get older, particularly, as they head towards adolescence. The potential risks to the children as a result are manifold. While there is of course no intent on behalf of PA1 and PA2 to cause these children any harm, it is of concern that if the children continue to experience the parenting they have received, there will be an adverse impact on their educational, emotional and social development, which has already been severely affected by their early life experiences. This is the assessment of the professional witnesses in this case, whose evidence I accept and rely upon.[125]Having regard to all the evidence, I accept the evidence of Mr E and Mr Brazil, that the likelihood is that the children will continue to make allegations about their carers, and ultimately this poses a risk of disruption to the placement, for example if one or the other of the carers is removed pending investigation of an allegation. It is right to note that in the past allegations have been investigated and found to be unsubstantiated. The prediction in the future is not of allegations that will necessarily be found to be proved. But equally the investigations have called for some reflection, curiosity and insight. The risk is that if the children are raised in an environment where their needs are not consistently managed, but are sometimes in an environment that is hectic, loud, without clear boundaries, where they do not always feel listened to, where one or the other is clamouring for attention but not getting the attention that they need, or a child who is emotionally dysregulated is met with a sudden intervention like being lifted from a room and carried to another place, or being shouted at, then that provides fertile ground for a situation to feel out of control to the children or the carer. This is fertile ground for the kind of situations to arise about which allegations have then been made.[126]I found that both PA1 and PA2’s response to the allegations has been to feel blamed and criticised by others, and under attack. It is understandable that they might feel that way given how much they love the children and how hard they have tried to meet their needs. They have sought to defend themselves. However, if I were to make orders for these children were to return to the care of the applicants, without the whole machinery and safety net that continued local authority and foster agency involvement provides, I would need to have confidence that these kinds of issues would not arise with anything like the frequency that they have been arising over the past five or six years. With regret, I do not have that confidence, when I look at PA1 and PA2’s responses to each of the investigations that has happened, at the rate of continuing allegations raised by the children with their new carer, and PA1 and PA2’s certainty that they can meet the children’s needs by continuing to parent in exactly the way that they did between October 2019 and October 2024.[127]The disadvantages of long-term foster care have already been described. There is an inherent risk of instability, of frequent placement changes, particularly given the children’s young ages. While it is not in the local authority’s plan, there is some risk that the children may be separated, which would be devastating. Long-term foster care does not sustain past the end of childhood.[128]The main disadvantage of long-term foster care for these children would overwhelmingly be the loss of the chance to live in their home with PA1 and PA2. It is a severing of family-ties that have been built for the overwhelming majority of Lucy and Kit’s childhoods, and for over half of Jamie’s. While PA1 and PA2 will always remain important people in the children’s lives, refusal of their applications does mean that both adults and children will suffer a huge and painful loss arising from their separation. As PA1 and PA2 have fairly acknowledged, this situation does perhaps arise from a blurring of lines between foster care and acting as a ‘real’ family, as they would see it. That does not take away from the genuine pain of loss for all concerned.[129]This is a factor that carries significant weight. The need for permanence for a child also weighs heavily in the analysis, as do the risks arising from potential instability of long-term foster care and its difference from ‘normal’ family life.[130]However, I must weigh each of the factors in the balance.[131]In plain terms and in answer to the applicants’ applications, the circumstances are that the children’s parents do not consent to the making of adoption orders. The Court can only make the adoption orders if satisfied that the parents’ consent should be dispensed with. Case law tells me that is only when satisfied, having carried out a full welfare evaluation of all of the relevant pros and cons, that nothing else but adoption will do to meet the children’s needs. Having regard to all the factors on the welfare checklist, I am not satisfied that adoption orders to the applicants are required to meet the welfare needs of these children. I cannot say that their welfare requires that the parents’ consent is dispensed with.[132]It cannot be said that adoption is the only option that will meet the welfare needs of the children. While there are potentially very great advantages to these children of being adopted by PA2 and PA1, and manifest disadvantages to them of remaining in long-term foster care, I find that the risks of harm to them if they were to be adopted outweighs those factors. Those risks arise principally from the parenting they would receive, the massive reduction of multi-agency support, the risk of placement breakdown, and the severing of ties to their birth family.[133]I have determined that the children’s welfare needs at this time in their life are that they remain in long-term foster care.[134]I have deliberately not considered the particular qualities of the carer with whom they are currently living as it is not for me to become involved in the implementation of the local authority’s care plan. I reach my conclusion on the basis that the children’s needs are best met by remaining in foster care per se, not necessarily with this particular carer. Nonetheless, I do note that their carer, who is a single parent, and a relatively inexperienced foster carer, welcomed the children into her home in October 2024 with little or no prior warning. This was a sudden and dramatic change of circumstances for the children. It is only to be expected that there have been challenges. The children’s diagnoses would suggest that they will continue to present with challenges to any carer throughout their childhoods. On any view their current carer is to be commended for supporting the children through this difficult transition, for supporting them to get the most out of contact with PA1, PA2 and their birth mother and grandmother, and providing them with a loving, safe and comfortable home. It is heartening to know that they will remain in her care as they come to terms with the decisions that I have made.[135]It is plainly in the children’s interests for the placement orders to be revoked. None of the parties argues otherwise. The application for adoption was not founded on the placement order. I endorse the local authority’s current care plan for all three of the children to remain in long-term foster care, and not to pursue adoption. That is not to necessarily rule out that option for ever, but in all the circumstances as they exist for the children now, it is not what the children’s welfare requires.[136]The application for an injunction will be formally dismissed. Mr Brookes-Baker has asked for seven days to send in written submissions to me in respect of an application for costs his clients wish to pursue in respect of that application.[137]I have not made any orders or given any indication in respect of contact. I would have been required to consider the question of contact had I made adoption orders. As the children remain in the care of the local authority, it is a matter for them to arrange for contact between the children and those people in their lives who are important to them. The care plans are reviewed regularly, it is not for the court to interfere with that process.[138]I will write letters to the children.[139]That is my judgment. HHJ Joanna Vincent Family Court, Reading 16 May 2025