Birmingham City Council v EM & Anor [2025] EWFC 205 (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.

Case No BM25C50127

[2025] EWFC 205 (B)

IN THE FAMILY COURT AT BIRMINGHAM

Venue Birmingham Civil and Family Justice Centre, Priory Courts 33 Bull Street Birmingham, B4 6DS

Date 16 May 2025

Before

DISTRICT JUDGE PARKER

Between

BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCILApplicant

(1) EMRespondents

MISS RUTH MANNING for Applicant Local Authority

MR GREGORY ROGERS for First Respondent

MR MATTHEW CANNAN (solicitor) for Children’s Guardian

JUDGMENT

Digital Transcription by Marten Walsh Cherer Ltd

2 nd Floor, Quality House, 6-9 Quality Court, Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1HP

Tel No: 020 7067 2900. DX: 410 LDE

Email: info@martenwalshcherer.com|

[1]I am concerned with two children, A, who was born on 11 February 2025, who is just over three months old; and C, who was born on 8 July 2012, who is aged twelve. C suffers from global developmental delay.

[2]The local authority seek removal following the conclusion of a residential placement with the mother and the children, on the basis of non-purposeful neglect and the children being exposed to risk. The respective fathers of the children have not been identified.

[3]The identified risk in relation to A is that mother, in essence, needs 24/7 support in order to provide appropriate parenting. The risk which pertains to C, because he is older, is in relation to him being exposed to risky adults due to the mother herself being vulnerable and associating with men who, effectively, are potentially not safe either to her or indeed the child. She is vulnerable to sexual exploitation and that in itself exposes both children to the risk of physical harm.

[4]Mother has low cognitive functioning. That in itself is not a reason why a local authority should intervene and remove children from a parent’s care; it is described as her having a mild learning disability, but nevertheless she is very vulnerable and as I have said, she is subject to exploitation by risky adults who would expose the children to the risk of harm. I note that there has been a re-referral to adult social services social care.

[5]There was a previous assessment of the mother undertaken by the local authority on 29 January 2025. It highlighted a number of deficits and that she would benefit from a period of assessment whereby she is able to access teaching and learning. There are said clear strengths in her parenting and she has a support network. However, there are still significant concerns as to her ability to keep the children safe.

[6]She undertook a twelve-week Bonner House residential assessment which concluded on 5 May 2025 and which is sadly negative. The outcome was that she struggled to meet the competing needs of the children on a consistent basis and safeguard them from harm despite being provided with learning and teaching. There are significant concerns in relation to her parenting and her ability to meet the children’s holistic needs, and her ability to protect them from harm is an ongoing concern, as is her lack of insight. Ultimately it concludes that without 24/7 oversight or supervision she would not be able to safely manage or provide adequate care to either child. Thus, it is recommended that the children are placed with alternative long-term carers. I note there has been lengthy local authority involvement since 2012 and there are no alternative carers

[7]This matter first came before me on 14 May 2025 as an urgent removal hearing. At that stage, the guardian identified a significant gap in the evidence. Despite the local authority knowing that the placement was coming to an end, and its conclusion was going to be negative, no analysis had been conducted as to whether the mother could care for the children with support in the community. There seemed to be little liaison with adult services or consideration of the mother’s ability to care for C in isolation. The guardian felt that these gaps needed to be filled. The pressing point, was that the residential unit effectively terminates today, being two days later on 16 May 2025.

[8]Mother’s position at the hearing was that she opposed removal. She said the test was not met and that she has cared for C, her older child, for a significant period. The local authority had full knowledge of mother’s limitation for years. The issue, effectively, is one of support and it is contended the local authority have not considered their duties and responsibilities under the Care Act and the impact on the separation particularly on C, who clearly has an established bond with the mother.

[9]They were criticised as to the fact there has been no liaison with adult social services and there being no consideration as to whether the mother can care for C on his own. Ideally, there should have been a multi-agency core group to identify mother’s needs, deficits and resources available to consider parenting with support.

[10]The local authority invited me with to deal with matters on the 14 May as there was a detailed assessment before the court, a parenting assessment from Bonner House and it was clear that the mother was unable to care for the children either together or separately.

[11]I was uncomfortable with making a determination at that stage, and therefore matters were adjourned for a substantive hearing today.

[12]The order I made on 14 May 2025 enabled the local authority to file evidence with regard to support to enable either child to remain with mother, either together or separately and to address the guardian’s perceived gaps in the evidence before the court.

[13]In the intervening period, I have been informed that the local authority have undertaken a search with regard to mother and baby foster placements, it is highly unlikely however that one will be found. There is an overall shortage of such placements. Of course, C is not a baby.

[14]The waiting list for potential supported living accommodation varies from a few weeks to a few months and a placement out of the locality is not suitable due to C needing to remain in his current school. A live in carer at mother’s home is not an option due to the risks in relation to the men who have been exploiting the mother and the fact that they know of her address.

[15]The guardian raised concerns that the search for a mother and baby foster placement had not really been undertaken prior to the matter coming back to court today, and in the morning of today’s hearing rather than immediately following the hearing on 14 May. There have also been no detailed inquiries with regard to supported living and therefore there are currently no options to present before the court. Having said that, there was a possibility of a refuge being available for C in order to mitigate the risks in relation to him. I therefore allowed the parties time to continue their inquiries as there did seem to be some light at the end of the tunnel as to a refuge being available where mum and C could go. Although it was not staffed, they visited once a week supplemented by a package of support and monitoring by the local authority.

[16]Sadly, it subsequently transpired that this was shared accommodation and is only suitable for adults. There is no other available placement. Accordingly, the plan of the local authority is that both children should be placed together in foster care. The only positive outcome being that C will remain in the same school.

[17]Mother’s counsel, with some justification, feels frustrated as to the current situation, and puts forward what is realised as an unrealistic option, namely that the mother returns to her own home. It is not realistic because not only does that impinge on mother’s own safety because of the adults that she has been associating with, but also Cas well.

[18]Quite justifiably, the issue was raised as to the fact that inquiries could have been made as to the “end game” sooner, particularly with regard to C; the issues with regard to his safety being somewhat different to that of his sibling. At the eight week period of the assessment the concerns were self-evident, and yet no steps were taken in relation to perhaps considering what should happen following the residential placement’s conclusion in relation to both children or indeed to them separately.

[19]In essence, it is contended, and there is some merit in this argument, that I am faced with separation of the children from their mother by default. Of course, I appreciate that in the interim stage I am only taking immediate steps to safeguard the children from future harm now which may not be the final outcome.

[20]In view of the current situation, the efforts with regard to searches for an appropriate and safe placement for the mother and C need to continue and, of course, the matter can be reviewed at the first case management hearing listed before me on 3 June 2025.

[21]I have listened to what the parties say in relation to contact. I have expressed a view that the appropriate contact between the mother and children, should separation be endorsed, is twice a week for 90 minutes for both children and then each of the children separately with their mother for between one hour to 90 minutes. That is acceptable to the local authority and an amended care plan will need to be provided.

[22]The children's guardian recognises, as does the court, that this mother loves her children dearly. She would never willingly cause them harm. The guardian maintains that to a great extent the mother has been let down by the lack of support and to her credit she has requested help, but where we are now is that in reality it appears that there is no other safe option in this case other than removal.

[23]The papers before the court make very sad reading as do most cases of this nature. What is evident to me from the chronology, is that from the very outset, this mother was not able to care for C when he was a baby without significant support. Fortunately, that support was available via her family, predominantly the maternal grandfather. I note that there was an application for a special guardianship order at one point, but that was negative. However, an assessment undertaken in March 2017 proposed that C should remain in the care of the maternal grandfather, his partner, and the mother by way of a collective parenting arrangement and the case was closed.

[24]Sadly, in 2020, the maternal grandfather’s partner passed away and the maternal grandfather took the lead role in caring for C. It was noted that the maternal grandfather and the mother loved and cared well for C and there was also support from their church.

[25]In May 2023, a family support worker was allocated following the maternal grandfather sadly passing away.

[26]It was in March 2024 that it became evident that the mum was being exploited by a number of men who she had invited into her house, that inappropriate behaviour was taking place in front of C which caused C to feel scared. He stated that one of the men pushed him. A safety plan was put in place. There were no concerns with regard to C, however, expressed by the school.

[27]A section 47 assessment on 16 August 2024 raised concern that the mother was not protecting C or herself from risk of harm. There was a lack of insight on mum’s part. A number of males were attending the property. She felt under duress, and they would force themselves on her. This ultimately led to C being registered on the child protection register under the category of emotional harm. At that stage, it became apparent that the mother was then pregnant with A. The mother continued with her associations.

[28]There was a parenting assessment undertaken where it was noted that the family were unable to offer any additional support over and above what they were offering at that time and that furthermore, there were concerns as to the breach of a safety plan.

[29]The local authority, in its initial evidence, maintained that despite intensive learning support provided by the residential unit, mother still lacks insight into the risk of harm her actions pose to the children. There are also concerns as to her ability to meet the children’s basic care needs, particularly with regard to A, without constant supervision. Their contention is that no support work or involvement on the local authority’s behalf would mitigate those risks, and that her learning disability impacts on her ability to understand, retain and respond to situations. That she struggles to implement new skills despite a number of approaches being applied, that effectively she needs 24/7 support to provide good enough parenting, and in essence, the gap between the care she can give and the care that the children need cannot be realistically bridged by services or indeed the wider family and friends network.

[30]I note that C himself is concerned about being separated from this mother.

[31]From the parenting assessment that has been undertaken, the main concern appears to be mother’s ability to learn and effect and sustain change and that she needs ongoing support due to her learning needs and ability to keep herself safe.

[32]It is noted that the mother has felt lonely since she lost her father, and that is understandable, but the behaviour in relation to seeking solace from inappropriate adults is a recurring theme and exposes any child to risk.

[33]The Dudley Lodge residential report sets out that the children’s routine was poor, as was mum’s ability to recognise and respond to the children’s basic needs. They were unable to reduce the level of supervision, she required hourly visits. They formed the view that without 24/7 oversight the children’s evolving needs would be neglected (previously, the maternal grandfather was fulfilling this role) They observed that mother may well find it difficult to manage C’s behaviour as he gets older and offer sufficient stimulation, and that this would be further impacted by having a new child. She had been heavily reliant on staff for prompts. Her parenting has been described as not being instinctive and her interactions minimal in relation to meeting the children’s emotional needs, despite her best efforts.

[34]A large focus of the assessment was on the understanding of risk posed by others and her ability to protect the children. This included one-to-one work. However, her learnings in this area were described as remaining static with little knowledge or insight of the potential consequences and effects on the children. It reiterates that loneliness for the mother is a big factor in seeking relationships with unknown males, as is her level of cognitive functioning, which has a significant impact on her ability to empathise with C’s own feelings in relation to this.

[35]It is noted that the online communications she has had with unknown males has persisted whilst at the unit up until at least 4 April 2025, and she has been unable to demonstrate how she is able to protect herself and to understand the context of healthy relationships and risk. The residential unit formed the view that due to her limited cognitive functioning, compounded by her social isolation and desire to fulfil her emotional needs, it is highly likely that she will remain predisposed to engaging in risky relationships, exposing the children to risk of significant harm. Her insight, despite significant teaching and support, has not greatly improved and she remains vulnerable, as do the children, and there is an insufficient support network in order to mitigate that.

[36]The most recent social work statement which I directed at the hearing on 14 May 2025 informs me that the mother does not meet the criteria for adult social care involvement as she herself has no care needs. My only comment in relation to that is that in isolation she may not, but this is a family and the needs of the mother directly impacts on the needs of the children.

[37]It reiterates that the mother needs advice and support around relationships, then goes on to say however that the mother is able to understand risks and make informed choices. It reports that supported living is not appropriate because the mother needs 24/7 supervision.

[38]A further referral has been made to assess mother’s care needs but there is no timescale with regard to that.

[39]An advocate, as previously recommended, has not yet been appointed because the previous referral was declined as she did not qualify at the time.

[40]In essence, the local authority is unable to provide 24/7 wrap around support or substitute parenting. They conclude that the children’s safety is of the utmost concern and both children should be placed away from mother’s care.

[41]In relation to vulnerable parents and parents with learning disabilities, case law is clear. Re: G and A (Care

[42]In the case of Re: D (Adoption No.3) [2016] EWFC, it was noted as follows:

“Too narrow a focus must not be placed exclusively on the child's welfare with an accompanying failure to address parents' needs arising from their disability which might impact adversely on their parenting capacity.”

[43]The Good Practice Guidance in Working with Parents with a Learning Disability, published in 2007 by the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Schools, and most recently updated in July 2021 by the Working Together with Parents Network, provides as follows:

“1.4.1 A need for long-term support does not mean that parents cannot look after their children. Some parents with learning disabilities will only need short-term support, such as help with looking after a new baby or learning about child development and childcare tasks. Others, however, will need on-going support. Most may need support at various points of their family’s life cycle for two main reasons. “First, although a parent with learning disabilities can learn how to do things, their cognitive impairment will not go away. Just as someone with a physical impairment may need personal assistance for the rest of their life so a person with learning disabilities may need assistance with daily living, particularly as new situations arise. Second, children and their needs change. A parent may have learned to look after a baby and young child and be coping well. However, as the child enters adolescence other support needs may arise.” “1.4.4 In a number of cases, courts in England have accepted the local authorities’ position that the amount of long-term support needed equated in effect to ‘substituted parenting’, which was considered to be harmful to the welfare of the child(ren), therefore resulting in the permanent removal of the children from their parents. Where a local authority raises the issue of ‘substituted parenting’ it should be able to fully evidence its position, including an analysis of the weight and likelihood of the risk and the options that have been considered to address, reduce, or remove that risk. Every effort should be made to support, not supplant the parent.”

[44]As Knowles J noted in Re: Nottinghamshire County Council v XX

[2022] EWFC 10

“It is clear to me that learning about the Good Practice Guidance on Working with Parents with a Learning Disability …. should be more widely disseminated to both children and family social workers and adult social care workers. It must be an essential part of continuation training for such social workers and their managers …. That guidance should also be at the forefront of local authority planning. That would give intellectual focus and rigour to the evaluation of parental strengths and weaknesses in cases, whether before the courts or not. Cases which come before the courts involving a parent with learning disabilities should, as a matter of good practice, be capable of demonstrating that the guidance has been taken into account in any care planning or proposals put forward by a local authority.”

[45]As set out in Re: H (Parents with Learning Difficulties: Risk of Harm)

[2023] EWCA Civ 59

“ …. there is an obligation on a court to enquire carefully as to what support is needed to enable parents with learning difficulties to show whether or not they can become good enough parents. A local authority cannot press for a plan for adoption simply because it is unable or unwilling to support the child remaining at home. A judge must therefore be rigorous in exploring and probing the local authority's thinking in cases where it may be affected by resource issues. Support for parents with learning difficulties may have to be long-term, extending throughout the child's minority, in part because parents with cognitive difficulties, even if they understand the information they have been given, may find it difficult to retain it or to apply it as the child gets older, but also because, as the child gets older, their needs will evolve and the range and level of support and guidance required by the parents must evolve alongside. Judges need to be wary of arguments based on the concept of ‘substituted parenting’. They should carefully scrutinise the evidence adduced by the local authority that the level of support required by the parents would be on a scale that would be adverse to the child's welfare and should look for options for ameliorating the risk of harm that might result from the high level of support.” “In the interests of the child, the starting point should have been, first, to identify and describe the level of support needed by the family, secondly ascertain what can and should be being done under the local authority's obligations, and thirdly to determine whether, with that in place, the child's welfare needs will be met. This involves a careful assessment of what the package would look like, how practical it is and how intrusive it would be for the child.”

[46]And in A Local Authority v G (Parent with Learning Disabilities) [2017] EWFC B 94:

“... If the problem is seen as entirely related to impairment and personal limitations, it is difficult to understand how to bring about positive changes for parents and their children.” “Where a parent has a learning disability the court must make sure that parent is not being disadvantaged simply because of their disability.”

[47]I accept, however, as set out in London Borough of Enfield v E (Unconscionable Delay)

[2024] EWFC 183

“It is to be acknowledged that …. care must be taken to ensure that a parent with learning difficulties is given a fair chance to demonstrate that they have the capacity to care for their child. …. However, to continue to pursue assessments in the face of clear forensic evidence that a parent does not have the capacity to parent their child not only causes prejudicial delay for the child. It also amounts, ultimately, to cruelty masquerading as hope for the parent.”

[48]Again, A Local Authority v H & W [2016] EWFC B 56:

“ …. even if a sustainable package could be devised which was in one sense capable of bridging the gap, it would not in fact be promoting [the child's] best interests. His parenting would, in reality become parenting by his professional and other carers rather than by his parents, with all the adverse consequences for his emotional development and future welfare.”

[49]I have put forward the case law with regard to care proceedings and learning disability at length. I do that for this reason: It does feel, in this case, particularly with regard to C, that I am being faced with a fait accompli. It is clear throughout the entire chronology in relation to when C was small that mother clearly struggles in looking after a very young child. Whilst I do not criticise the residential assessment being orchestrated for the purposes of revisiting matters in relation to A, clearly the local authority must have been aware at the eight-week stage that the concerns that have been longstanding remained.

[50]However, the situations between A and C are different. A requires full on care, which the mother clearly is unable to provide. C has been brought up in the mother’s care for the past twelve years; he is 13 in July of this year. I accept that for the majority of that period that was under a co-parenting arrangement between the mother, her father and her father’s partner. Sadly, due to the death of the father and his partner, that is no longer a feasible option.

[51]Notwithstanding that, since 2023 when her father passed away, the mother has, in essence, cared for C.

[52]I accept that there are real issues in relation to mother’s vulnerability. I accept that there are real issues in relation to her seeking companionship and emotional warmth in the wrong places which exposes her to risk, and indeed C and any other child in her care as well.

[53]I appreciate that while she realises that, she has not been able to evidence an ability to break the cycle and there is a real risk in relation to that remaining, which would expose C to future harm.

[54]Potentially, that risk could have been mitigated following the conclusion of the residential assessment to enable at least her and C remaining together in an environment where further work could be done either on the basis of a live-in foster care home in relation to a community assessment or community placement, or other scenario with regard to a refuge with wrap around support and monitoring.

[55]All these explorations, sadly, have had to be done within 48 hours, and not unsurprisingly the outcome is a negative. Had matters been put in hand a number of weeks ago -- even a fortnight ago -- the situation may be different, but I am now faced with a fait accompli that ultimately, I am asked now to remove two children from mother’s care because the residential placement terminates this evening.

[56]An interim care order regime is designed to ensure that a child is kept safe in the period prior to the court’s full consideration of the care application. I am not required to evaluate the longer term; I only have to consider what may happen to the children during the interim period if they were to continue to live with the mother. Therefore, I have to deal with the issues as they are now.

[57]I am fully aware of the propositions set out in the case of Re: C (A Child) (Interim Separation)

[2019] EWCA 1998

, that an interim order is made at a stage when the evidence is incomplete. It therefore should only regulate matters that cannot await the final hearing. It is, effectively, a neutral outcome, and removal of a child or children is an interference with their right to respect family life under article 8. A particularly sharp interference when it is compounded in a case such as this case, with a baby, where removal will affect the formation and development of the parent/child bond. Of course, it also disrupts an established bond, as with C.

[58]Therefore, a removal order will only be justified when it is both necessary and proportionate, and therefore only sanctioned where the children’s physical safety and psychological or emotional welfare demands it and where the length and likely consequences of the separation are a proportionate response to the risks that would arise if it did not occur.

[59]A high standard of justification is required by the local authority seeking separation, including informing the court of all available resources that might remove the need for separation. Sadly, this is lacking in this case.

[60]It is clear in this case that there are reasonable grounds to conclude that the threshold for removal is crossed.

[61]Turning to the welfare stage, I have to determine whether such a removal is necessary to safeguard the welfare of the children and whether such removal is proportionate to the risk of harm to which they would be exposed if they were allowed to remain with the mother.

[62]In this case, I am satisfied in relation to A that removal is justified in relation to immediate removal which is proportionate to the risk of harm she would be exposed to if she were to remain with the mother. I appreciate that A is only three months old and that will cause her and her mother distress. But in the absence of any placement which could provide 24/7 support that, I am afraid, at this stage, this is the only available option for the court.

[63]In relation to C, with heavy heart I reach the same conclusion. The risks for C are different, in the sense that it is clear that mother is still at risk herself with regard to exploitation, and that in turn puts C at risk.

[64]I hope that, as these proceedings continue, that further work can be done, hopefully involving adult social care and tailored support, that the mother can evidence the change that she needs to effect so that at least one of the children might return to her care.

[65]It may well be that she needs some form of counselling in relation to the loss of her father and in relation to the issue of appropriate relationships. This, however, needs to be tailored to her own cognitive functioning and vulnerabilities and there may be groups available in relation to young mothers to assist in relation to that. But until that can be shown, I am afraid that I am drawn to the conclusion that the only appropriate order I should make, at this stage, is an interim care order with removal.

[66]In the meantime, the local authority should make strenuous efforts to ensure that if a suitable safe accommodation or resource is available to ensure that C can be reunited with his mother, then that should be pursued.

[67]Accordingly, I am satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that threshold is met. I am satisfied the children’s safety demands immediate separation. There is no alternative put before the court, which I have already commented on is most unfortunate. I am satisfied that that being the case, that removal is at the present moment in time in the best interests of the children and is a proportionate response.

[68]That is my judgment and the reasons for it. Digital Transcription by Marten Walsh Cherer Ltd 2nd Floor, Quality House, 6-9 Quality Court, Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1HP Tel No: 020 7067 2900. DX: 410 LDE Email: info@martenwalshcherer.com

Web: www.martenwalshcherer.com

Order

Freeing Order: Parents with a Learning Disability) [2006]NI Fam 8 is a seminal case in this area: “This court fully accepts that parents with learning difficulties can often be ‘good enough’ parents when provided with the ongoing emotional and practical support they need. The concept of ‘parenting with support’ must underpin the way in which the courts and professionals approach, wherever possible, parents with learning difficulties …. judges must make absolutely certain that parents with learning difficulties are not at risk of having their parental responsibilities terminated on the basis of evidence that would not hold up against normal parents. Their competences must not be judged against stricter criteria or harsher standards than other parents.” “Children of parents with learning difficulties often do not enter the child protection system as the result of abuse by their parents. More regularly the prevailing concerns centre on a perceived risk of neglect, both as the result of the parents’ intellectual impairments, and the impact of the social and economic deprivation commonly faced by adults with learning difficulties. It is in this context that a shift must be made from the old assumption that adults with learning difficulties could not parent to a process of questioning why appropriate levels of support are not provided to them so that they can parent successfully and why their children should often be taken into care. At its simplest, this means a court carefully inquiring as to what support is needed to enable parents to show whether or not they can become good enough parents rather than automatically assuming that they are destined to fail.”