A to G (Care - seven siblings), Re [2025] EWFC 393 (B)

IN THE FAMILY COURT AT READING
[2025] EWFC 393 (B)Date 2 October 2025
IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN ACT 1989, THE ADOPTION AND CHILDREN ACT 2002 AND IN THE MATTER OF [AMBER], [BEAU], [CONNIE], [DYLAN], [EMMIE], [FLEUR] AND [GABRIEL]
Before: HHJ Vincent
A local authorityApplicantA motherRespondent motherA fatherSecond Respondent fatherThe children (acting by their children’s guardian HELEN ROBEY)Third to Ninth Respondent children
Between
A local authorityApplicantA motherRespondentRespondent motherRespondentA fatherRespondentThe children (acting by their children’s guardian HELEN ROBEY)RespondentEdward Kirkwood instructed by Wokingham Borough CouncilAlison Williams instructed by Reeds solicitors for Respondent motherHaroon Rana, instructed by Albin and Co Ltd, solicitors for Respondent fatherDouglas Darlow of Fairbrother & Darlow, solicitors for respondent childrenHearing Hearing dates: 30 September and 2 October 2025Approved JudgmentThis judgment was handed down to the parties at a hearing at 2.00 p.m. on 2 October 2025 and was circulated to the parties and their representatives immediately thereafter. The date and time of handing down is 2.00 p.m. on 2 October 2025.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 names have been changed for the purpose of anonymisation. Key:

[1]I am concerned with seven brothers and sisters. The oldest, [Amber], is thirteen, then comes [Beau] (eleven), [Connie] (six), [Dylan] (four), [Emmie] (very nearly three) and the twins, [Fleur] and [Gabriel], who have just had their first birthdays.[2]The children’s mother is [Shannon]. She is thirty-three. The children’s father is [Dan]. He will be thirty-seven at the end of next month.[3][Shannon] described her childhood as ‘not the easiest’. She was in foster care between the ages of thirteen and fifteen, before returning home to live with her mum. She was around seventeen years old when she and [Dan] started their relationship.[4]The local authority has been involved in this family’s life since 2012, when [Shannon] was pregnant with [Amber]. The local authority’s worries about the wellbeing and safety of the children have included neglect of their basic needs, exposure to criminality, substance misuse, domestic abuse, and risk to them of physical, emotional and sexual harm arising from the environment in which they were being raised.[5]In May 2024, all of the children were made subject to Child Protection plans.[6]At around that time and for the months leading up to these proceedings being issued, [Shannon] was facing a number of challenges, but she says she was working with the local authority to address them. School attendance of the older three was much lower than it should have been. She says there were time they were ill, or didn’t want to go to school or didn’t want to walk in the rain, and she didn’t feel able to force them. [Shannon] had taken [Dylan] out of nursery in September 2023, but he started again three days a week in September 2024.[7]Both the parents have been drug users, [Shannon] accepts that she used cocaine regularly in the six months before she gave birth to the twins.[8]Both parents have criminal records. [Shannon] has accepted that she has shoplifted in the past, and that at times she has taken the children with her.[9][Shannon] does not accept the local authority’s concerns about neglect of the children’s basic needs, or that they had poor hygiene in general, but she has accepted that the children have poor dental hygiene, and have not been taken to a dentist for regular checkups. [Beau] has had twelve teeth removed and [Connie] has had ten teeth removed.[10]There have been long-standing and significant concerns about [Dan]. He too has a history of drug use and of criminality. There have been worries about the nature of his relationship with [Shannon] and about associations with dangerous individuals. Allegations have also been made against him about inappropriate sexualised behaviour towards [Amber] and within the household.[11][Dan] does not accept all these allegations. However, he has not put in a formal response to them, nor filed any evidence. He has not participated in these proceedings for many months. Directions were given at an early stage of these proceedings for him to be assessed by a psychologist and for there to be a sexual harm risk assessment, but he chose not to engage with them.[12]He supports [Shannon]’s position that she would like the children returned to her care. He has seen the children regularly throughout the proceedings, attending contact arranged by the local authority. He wishes that to continue. He does not seek to challenge the local authority’s current assessment that contact between him and the children should be supervised.[13]In the circumstances, not all the allegations against him have been pursued, and have not therefore been investigated in these proceedings. However, because he had not responded to the local authority’s threshold document by February 2025, and had not complied with orders to provide a sample of hair for drug and alcohol testing, threshold findings pleaded against him were deemed to be proved. I make it clear that no findings have been sought and no findings have been made against [Dan] about him posing a risk of sexual harm to any of his children.[14]Those findings were(i) that the father was racially abusive and threatening towards a social worker, referring to him as a ‘black c**t’ in the presence of the children, and saying to [Amber], ‘we do not like black people do we’;(ii) he has an extensive criminal history with 27 theft and kindred offences, 14 offences relating to police/courts/prisons, 1 drug offence and 22 miscellaneous offences;(iii) he uses and deals cocaine and will shoplift to fund his drug habit;(iv) his engagement with the probation services has been poor. He has shown a complete disregard for court orders. OASys has assessed his behaviour capable of negative impact on a child’s well-being; and(v) he has been assessed by probation as posing a very high risk of harm to children, high risk to future intimate partners, known adults and professionals.’[15]On 19 August 2024 the local authority commenced pre-proceedings, as it felt that there was not enough progress being made to address the concerns it had for the children in their parents’ care. On 23 August 2024 the parents attended a meeting with the local authority. At that time [Amber] was just about to be twelve, [Beau] was ten, [Connie] five, [Dylan] was three and [Emmie] was coming up for her second birthday. [Shannon] was heavily pregnant with the twins, with a Caesarean booked for [X] September 2024. [Shannon] says the plan was that once the twins were born, both she and [Dan] would be subject to a parent assessment, and that they would be at home with all the children.[16][Shannon] says that it came as a complete shock to her when the local authority told her on [X] September 2024 that it intended to issue proceedings. She says on that date she had no idea what the local authority’s plans were for the children. She only understood later that the local authority had thought there was a risk of the family fleeing, based on one of the children saying something about wanting to go on holiday.[17]Proceedings were issued on 1 October. On 2 October 2024 there was a hearing at Court. [Shannon] says she only found out about the local authority’s plans that she, the twins and [Emmie] and [Dylan] should go to [residential placement], shortly before the Court hearing started.[18]It is to her great credit that she did agree to moving to [residential placement in the north of England]. She spent five months there, caring for the newborn twins, [Emmie] and [Dylan] as a single parent, all the time while she was being assessed.[19]The assessment identified a number of positives about [Shannon], but ultimately concluded that she was not able to parent all the children. At a hearing on 13 March 2025, the Court sanctioned the separation of all seven children from their mother. The report acknowledged that [Shannon] loves her children and they all love her, but identified persistent concerns about her ability to keep them safe and to meet all their needs all the time. The concerns mostly related to [Dan]; the parents’ continuing relationship was of concern to the assessors, and [Shannon]was not always open and honest about it. The assessor also felt that [Shannon] could not always see that the children had been exposed to harm in the past, nor could she see why her continuing relationship with [Dan] would continue to put them at risk of harm in the future. In short, it was found that she was not always alive to risks that her children may be exposed to, and not always able to prioritise their needs so as to keep them safe.[20]Following the hearing in March 2025, the children were placed in four separate foster placements; [Amber] on her own, [Beau] with [Connie], [Dylan] with [Emmie] and the twins together.[21]The local authority filed its final evidence and care plans in April 2025. The plans are for the older three children to remain in long-term foster care, and for the youngest four to be placed for adoption.[22]Neither parent filed evidence to challenge the local authority’s final evidence.[23]The guardian’s final evidence was filed on 7 August 2025. She supports the local authority’s care plans for each of the children.[24]At the final hearing I heard submissions on behalf of each of the parties. Mr Kirkwood represented the local authority. [Dan] did not attend the hearing, but was represented by Mr Rana. [Shannon] did attend, supported by her lay advocate, Pauline Foy. She was represented by Miss Williams, who has been instructed throughout these proceedings. The children were represented by their solicitor Mr Darlow. Their guardian Helen Robey was also at Court.

The law

[25]I must first consider whether the threshold for making any orders as set out atsection 31 of the Children Act 1989 is crossed. The parties agreed that it is, and the agreed threshold document is annexed to this judgment.[26]If the local authority establishes that threshold is crossed, the Court then goes on to consider what orders should be made, having regard to all the circumstances of the case and with particular reference to the factors set out at section 1(3) of the Children Act 1989 (the welfare checklist).[27]Whenever a court is coming to a decision relating to the adoption of a child, the Court must also have regard to section 1 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, in particular the factors set out at the checklist at section 1(4) of that Act.[28]With respect to the application for a placement order, section 21 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 states that the Court can only make a placement order against parental consent where it is satisfied that the welfare of the child requires that their consent should be dispensed with.[29]In reaching my decision the children’s welfare is paramount, and their welfare has been at the forefront of my mind throughout this hearing. The court should not make any orders unless it is satisfied that it is both necessary and proportionate to secure their welfare – the Court must take the least interventionist approach.[30]I have regard in particular to the case of Re B [2013] UKSC 33 in which the justices of the Supreme Court considered the approach the Court should take where the local authority’s application is for adoption. Lord Neuberger said at paragraph 104 of his judgment:
‘… adoption of a child against her parents’ wishes should only be contemplated as a last resort – when all else fails. Although the child’s interests in an adoption case are ‘paramount’ (in the UK legislation and under article 21 of UNCRC) a court must never lose sight of the fact that those interests include being brought up by her natural family, ideally her natural parents, or at least one of them.’
[31]Baroness Hale said at paragraph 198 of Re B:
‘Intervention in the family must be proportionate, but the aim should be to reunite the family where the circumstances enable that, and the effort should be devoted towards that end. Cutting off all contact and ending the relationship between the child and their family is only justified by the overriding necessity of the interests of the child.’

Analysis

[32]I have considered all the evidence in the bundle, which includes the local authority’s witness evidence, care plans, and minutes and logs documenting their involvement with the family; the parenting assessment from [residential placement]; a transcript of the evidence given by the author of the parenting assessment at the contested interim care hearing, three witness statements filed by [Shannon] at earlier stages of proceedings, and the guardian’s final analysis.[33][Ms T] is the children’s social worker. She has spent a lot of time with all the children because she facilitated weekly contact between the older three and their mother and the younger four children when they were living in [residential placement in north of England], and has continued to see a lot of them at contact sessions and more generally since March. She has got to know each of the children well. Her evidence is detailed and sets out clearly the sources for the information she has obtained, much of it from her own observations and experiences with the family. I found her evidence to be comprehensive and well-balanced. She has considered carefully the risks to the children and the different options for them.[34]On behalf of [Shannon], Miss Williams made both written and oral submissions which made a significant impact. She emphasises [Shannon]’s love for her children, and her commitment to them shown steadfastly through these proceedings, despite facing a number of challenges and struggles of her own. She also highlighted [Shannon]’s courage and strength of character in going to [residential placement in north of England], days after giving birth to her twins by Caesarean, with two toddlers in tow, and remaining there for five months. I have met [Shannon] at two hearings, and on both occasions have been struck by her courage and resilience as she heard the plans being discussed for her to be separated from all seven of her children. Her distress was evident. I am left in no doubt that her children are her world and she loves them with all her heart.[35]I turn now to consider the factors on the welfare checklists from the Children Act 1989, and from the Adoption and Children Act 2002.[36]Starting with the children’s wishes and feelings (section 1(3)(a) CA1989; s.1(4)(a) ACA2002), their particular needs (s.1(3)(b) CA1989; s.1(4)(b) ACA2002, their age, sex and background and other relevant characteristics (s.1(3)(d) CA1989; 1(4)(d) ACA2002)[37][Amber] is a caring and kind girl, who has a big sense of responsibility as the oldest of seven children. She is very loyal to her parents. She has often been included in adult conversations and is treated sometimes more as a friend than a daughter by them. She is quiet and self-contained, and does not always find it easy to show emotion, or give words to feelings. She keeps a lot inside. Ideally she would like to return to her parents’ care, but she has said that it would be ok if she were to stay with her foster carers. Since she has been living with them, she has benefited from having one to one time with her foster carers and their adult daughter. She particularly likes shopping, and enjoyed a lovely summer holiday abroad with them. She is at the same school that she attended when she was living at home. While she does not love school, she goes every day, and has some good close friends there. I had the pleasure of meeting [Amber] at Court, she was just as she had been described, quiet and a little shy at first, but, in part I think to reassure her younger brother, she took the lead in making conversation, and became increasingly chatty.[38][Beau] came to see me with [Amber] and looked very smart in his brand new school uniform. He had started a new school only a couple of weeks before. He was a bit shy and generally preferred to answer questions rather than volunteer information, but I think encouraged by his sister, he told me about a recent trip to the zoo and his favourite animals. His foster carer says that she thinks he likes the boy that he has become since living with them. He received the learner of the year award in his last year of primary school. He is going to scouts. She thinks that he feels he may have to act differently when he is with his family, and this may be a bit confusing for him. He loves his parents and his siblings very much. He does not find it easy to talk about his feelings. When the guardian told him about the local authority’s plans, she says he remained quiet, and then gave one word answers, heavily led by her. He said that he did not agree with the care plans and he did not accept the concerns about his parents.[39][Connie] is six. She is a confident and outspoken child. She and [Beau] have a wonderful relationship. Although they bicker like any siblings do, they are loving and caring towards each other. [Beau] loves to make [Connie] laugh. She loves creepy crawlies and has created a bug hotel in the garden of her foster carers’ home. When it comes to talking about her family she normally follows what [Beau] says, but when she was asked about the care plans, she said that she did not mind what the proposed care plans were and that she was happy in foster care. She does love seeing her siblings and her mum in contact sessions.[40][Dylan] is four and goes to nursery. The guardian says that when she first met him he could be challenging including swearing and ‘being defiant against any boundaries that were imposed’. She says that he has made big changes very quickly in a more structured environment. [Dylan] is too young to be asked his views about the local authority’s plans. He loves his parents and his siblings and it can be presumed that he would wish to grow up in his family of origin if it was safe for him to do so.[41][Emmie] is described by the guardian as a sweet natured child who craves attention and engages well with anyone who wants to play with her. She can also play by herself. She loves cuddling with her mum.[42][Fleur] and [Gabriel] are a year old. They are healthy and well and progressing as they should be at their age and stage of development.[43][Emmie], [Fleur] and [Gabriel] cannot be asked about their wishes and feelings, but again, it can be presumed that they would wish to grow up in their family of origin if it was safe for them to do so. Although the twins have never lived together with their whole sibling group, they have spent considerable time as a group of seven throughout these proceedings, and will grow up identifying strongly as part of that large sibling group wherever they live.[44]All seven of these children have experienced significant disruption and uncertainty, both during these proceedings and in the months and years leading up to them. Each of them needs to live in an environment where they are safe and where they feel safe, where their daily needs are met consistently, and where there is stability and security, so that they have room to experience the joys of childhood, to learn, to grow, to develop interests and to have fun.[45]I next consider the likely effect on the children of a change of their circumstances (s.1(3) CA1989), and for those children whose care plan is placement for adoption, the likely effect on the children (throughout their life) of having ceased to be a member of the original family and becoming an adopted person (s.1(4)(c) ACA2002) and the relationship they have with relatives and any other relevant person (s.1(4)(f) ACA2002).[46]The changes proposed by the local authority are seismic. It is proposed to separate a sibling group of seven from their parents, and from one another, and for the four youngest to be placed into two new families, with a view to them becoming adopted by them.[47]At this point however, some very significant changes have already happened, and there has been a period of adjustment and the beginnings of some acceptance that the alternative of the children being able to grow up together, as one sibling group, cared for by their parents, is not a realistic possibility.[48][Amber] misses her siblings very much, but at the same time is benefiting from being in a placement as the only child. She is flourishing in many ways. If the local authority’s care plan for her is approved, she will remain living with her foster carers, so she will not have to cope with any major change. Her relationship with her parents, her nan, and her siblings will be preserved and nurtured through regular contact, but she would see them much less than she does now. It is right that contact with siblings who are adopted may be much more infrequent, and cannot be guaranteed.[49]For [Beau] and [Connie] the situation is similar, because they too have been in foster care for a year now and it is proposed that they remain in foster care. Their current placement however may not be long-term, so a future move is anticipated which is likely to be disruptive and unsettling in all kinds of ways.[50][Emmie] and [Dylan] have already moved to the home of early permanence carers, with their mother’s agreement. So while they have adjusted to huge change over the past year, again for them, it is arguable that those changes are now behind them, and the making of the orders would not bring about in their daily lives a big shift to cope with in the very short term. But for the longer term and for the rest of their lives, the change is momentous, bringing with it the prospect of them no longer being regarded in law as members of their birth family, and having new parents. This is likely to have a profound and life-long impact upon them. The local authority proposes that loss would be mitigated by life story work and by annual contact with their siblings and with their mother. Again, that cannot be guaranteed, as it will depend on a number of different factors, which may change over time. On any view, it is a dramatically different life from the one they would have had if they were to have remained in their birth family.[51][Gabriel] and [Fleur] are in foster care and if the local authority’s plans are approved for them, they will remain with their present carers until prospective adopters are found for them. They would then have the disruption and difficulty of leaving their carers and having to make attachments to new carers. Those carers would be making a lifelong commitment to them and it is hoped, provide them with a loving, stable and secure home. Nonetheless, as with [Emmie] and [Dylan], the lifelong impact of being adopted and no longer members of their birth family will be profound. The same considerations apply in respect of attempts to mitigate that loss through life story work and maintaining contact with their birth family.[52]Looking at any harm the children have suffered or are at risk of suffering (s.1(3)(e) CA1989 and s.1(4)(e) ACA2002) together with the capacity of their parents to meet their needs (s1(3)(f) CA1989).[53][Shannon] loves and adores all her children. She has loved them for all their lives. She has tried hard to work with the local authority, to listen to their concerns, and to make the changes that have been asked of her. It must have been extraordinarily difficult to move to [residential placement in north of England] only a week after having given birth by Caesarean to the twins, and with two children under three as well, leaving behind three other children from whom she had never been separated. That she did so, and stayed for a full five months is a testament to her love and commitment to her children, and to her willingness to work with the local authority.[54]She feels angry that she was placed very suddenly in a residential placement when she had just delivered twins by Caesarean, and had to care for them and two toddlers on her own, away from her support network and given very little help by the staff at the residential unit. She feels that she was set up to fail. Despite these challenges, she built up a good relationship with her key worker and the first assessor, but he left abruptly, and the assessment was completed and written up by the manager at the unit.[55]There are a number of positives in the assessments, and these positives are reflected in the social work evidence, in the records of contact, and by the guardian. However, it was also observed that she was struggling to meet the basic needs of her four youngest children in keeping them clean, washed, and providing them with clean and tidy clothes. There were also concerns about a lack of supervision and poor stimulation, and an inability to put routines in place, for example around bath and bedtime.[56]Since March 2025, [Shannon] has had five different contact sessions a week. She has missed only seven in total, when unwell. The contact session notes show that the children have a close bond, are loving and affectionate towards their mother, as she is towards them.[57]However, the guardian has observed that [Shannon] does not show much ability to be proactive, she sits most of the time and does not create any routines around eating or playing.[58]The professionals consider that despite the positives, there remains significant cause for concern, and if the children were to return home to their mother’s care, things would likely return to how they were before these proceedings were issued. [Shannon] would struggle to meet all the children’s needs all of the time, and they would be at risk of physical and emotional neglect. In her final analysis, the guardian said that while [Shannon] made some small changes during the five months she was in [residential placement in north of England], she, ‘did not gain the insight and distance from [Dan] that could enable her to become a safe parent nor acknowledge the risks that he posed to herself and her children.’[59]The guardian acknowledged that separating from a sixteen-year relationship with a limited network of support would be very difficult, but concluded, that, ‘[Shannon] is not presently even at the contemplation stage of making the required changes.’[60]The most significant risk is that [Shannon] would not be able to protect the children from the risks posed to them by their father. [Shannon] accepts that she has continued an association with him, even though she is aware of the local authority’s concerns. She says that he is a very significant person for her and for the children, and it is not reasonable to expect them to stay away from one another completely.[61]She has felt the separation from all seven of her children very deeply. Being without them has impacted her already vulnerable mental health.[62]While it is understandable that she needs help and support, the concern is that her coping mechanisms – relying on [Dan], and using drugs to manage her stress – are not what is needed to help her or to help the children. After so many years, it is understandable that it is hard to break these patterns, but it is very clear that this is what the children need her to be able to do, in order that their needs can be met consistently, and they can be safe from harm.[63]The parenting assessment from [residential placement] dated 5 February 2024 concluded as follows: It is evident that [Shannon]loves her children and that her children love their mother, however, significant safety concerns are present, and whilst the safety concerns are predominantly in relation to [Dan], [Shannon’s] ability to make decisions in the best interests of her children, [Shannon’s] ability to recognise risk and [Shannon’s] ability to demonstrate she is able to protect her children remains limited following the 19-week assessment. The lack of supervision provided to the children in the sole care of their mother, and instances during contact with [Dan], has also placed the children at risk of harm. Given safety concerns are present for the four youngest children, the Assessor does not deem it safe for [Amber], [Beau] and [Connie] to return to their mother’s care, the older children are reported to be thriving in their current placements and within school. The Assessor is also aware that [Amber] is continuing to be exposed to emotional trauma by her parents. As [Amber] is the eldest, she has further understanding of the information conveyed to her and around her; the Assessor has been informed by the Local Authority that [Shannon]and [Dan] are observed to be providing conflicting information to [Amber] about their relationship status, which has had an emotional impact on [Amber]. Historically, [Shannon’s] children have also been subject to emotional harm, witnessing criminal activities and inappropriate conversations from their parents, as evidenced in the Child Protection Concerns section of the report. The Assessor does not deem [Shannon]to be open and honest regarding her relationship status with [Dan], and despite the findings in court clearly highlighting ‘Father has been assessed by probation as posing a very high risk of harm to children, high risk to future intimate partner, known adults and professionals’, [Shannon]has dismissed this, and continues to believe “[Dan] would not harm the children.” [Shannon]is unable to recognise the harm her children have already been exposed to, and [Shannon]is unable to recognise the risk of future harm her children are likely to be exposed to. The Assessor is concerned that [Shannon’s] priority outside of a controlled environment would be her relationship with [Dan], the emotional tie is evident, and during challenging conversations about the risks associated with [Dan], comments such as “if you are not going to let me keep my kids, I may as well leave now” further heighten the Assessor’s concern. Likewise, during supervised contact within the community, [Shannon]and [Dan] have prioritised their own needs, engaging in sexual intercourse, with professionals present, evidencing they prioritised their own needs and evidencing that should professionals not have been present, the children would likely have been left unsupervised in the community.”[64]Miss Williams identified some areas where [Shannon] feels the assessment was unfair. However, the assessment has previously been subject to the scrutiny of the Court. Ms S, the author of the assessment, was cross-examined (albeit this was an interim not final hearing). I have seen both the transcript of her evidence and DJ Comiskey’s judgment. I have read the assessment carefully and I find that it is well-balanced, highlighting positives where they are seen, but setting out clearly the level of concern, supported by a clear evidence-base. Those concerns are a continuum of what was seen before proceedings, and have continued after the residential assessment concluded.[65]The concerns about [Shannon]’s relationship with [Dan] have continued over the past six months. A non-molestation order was made on 13 March 2025 but discharged at the hearing on 27 May 2025. [Dan] has frequently been seen waiting outside the contact centre when [Shannon] has had contact.[66]The local authority’s concerns as to the ongoing association continue. It is understood that the parents recently appeared before Magistrates in [redacted] on shoplifting charges. The recent statement from [Police Constable X] highlights that there have been numerous occasions over recent months when the parents have been seen together. [Police Constable X] has also arrested [Dan] on a number of occasions in respect of offences that he has alleged to have committed with [Shannon]. [Police Constable X] has also seen both parents together at the family home. She has concerns that there have been continuing incidents of domestic abuse.[67]During conversations [Dan] has repeatedly indicated to [Police Constable X] that he remains in a relationship with [Shannon]. The Housing Department has recently reported that the couple are living together at the family home.[68]The second risk is around parental drug use. [Dan] is deemed to accept the threshold findings around drug use and drug dealing.[69]In the past, [Shannon] said that she used cocaine as a coping mechanism when she was stressed. I do not have evidence from recent hair strand tests to tell me whether or not this is the case. However, the local authority invites me to draw an inference from [Shannon]’s failure to provide a hair sample, and from the knowledge of her previous patterns of behaviour, that it is more likely than not that she is using drugs again as a means of coping with her current situation.[70]In addition, the local authority has provided evidence from [Y], [Dan]’s brother, alleging that he had been taking drugs with both parents in August.[71]All these matters led to the local authority issuing proceedings in the first place. They are concerns which have been present throughout the time that [Shannon] and [Dan] have been parents. Despite years of local authority involvement, and these proceedings, the situation appears to be the same, and the children continue to be at risk of significant harm as a result.[72]Considering whether any other person has the capacity to care for the children.[73][Shannon]’s mum has been a constant source of support to her and visits the children regularly with her in contact, usually bringing delicious home cooked meals for them to share. She loves them all very much. Initially she offered her home for the oldest four children, but was negatively assessed. She has not sought to challenge the assessment.[74]A number of other family members were interviewed. [Shannon]’s cousin [V] and her partner [W] were positively assessed as potential carers for [Amber]. However, [Amber] does not have an established relationship with them, and if she could not return home, her preference would be to remain with her current foster carers. There are no other family members who have been positively assessed as an alternative carer for any of the children.[75]When considering parenting capacity, I must consider the measures of support that could be put in place to maximise the parents’ abilities to care for the children However, in this case, [Shannon] had intensive support for twenty-four hours a day from experienced and skilled professionals but it did not bring about the level of change and insight required. There has been a continuing worry that the parents have involved [Amber] far too much in these proceedings, and that [Dan] shared with [Amber] pictures of his injuries after he was attacked at the family home in February 2025.[76]Acknowledging the positives, ultimately I have agreed with the local authority’s assessment that sadly, the negatives in this case outweigh those positives. I accept the conclusions of the parenting assessment, [Ms T]’s evidence, and I accept the guardian’s fair and balanced analysis.[77][Dan] loves his children and has shown his commitment to them by visiting them regularly in contact. However, he has not been able to engage with the local authority to understand the risks that his continuing behaviour poses to them. He has not shown any intention of making the kinds of changes that would be needed to break the patterns of behaviour that have become entrenched between him and [Shannon], and which are so damaging for them and for their family.[78]Even though he has attended contact regularly, there have been some issues around his behaviour, the children have sometimes been distressed, or [Amber] has been drawn into adult discussions which have been difficult for her to handle.[79][Shannon] has engaged much more, but on a fundamental level, has not demonstrated that she would be able to make the changes that would be required of her to enable her to parent all the children safely, nor to sustain those changes for any length of time. I have not seen any evidence that tells me that the parents would be able to parent their children any differently than they did before. As a result, all the children would be at risk of significant harm should they return home.[80]The local authority has considered whether it would be safe for some but not all the children to return home. However, while it may be easier for [Shannon] to manage the daily needs of fewer children, the wider risks around her ability to act protectively and to prioritise their needs would still be there even if she were caring for just one or any number of her children.[81]I must consider the harm that the children would suffer if the local authority were granted the care orders it seeks.[82]The children would suffer the harm of separation from their parents and from each other. The children love their parents. They are a close group who love spending time together. They would wish to grow up in their family of origin, to be raised alongside their brothers and sisters, and to grow up knowing and being close to members of their extended family on both sides.[83]For the older three children, there is some risk of harm to them that comes with care orders with a plan for long-term foster care. The order brings with it the continued involvement of the local authority in these children’s lives, which they may well experience as intrusive and marking them out from others. It brings with it uncertainty, as placements do not always sustain, and it formally comes to an end when a young person finishes their education; it is not life-long. This risk is higher for [Connie] who is only six years old, and is already in a placement that is due to come to an end. It is a lesser risk for [Amber] who is older and in an established placement where there is some confidence that it will be permanent. Every time a placement comes to an end, the children suffer a significant loss, and then have to rebuild relationships, often as well as in new homes, in new schools and new areas of the country.[84]For the younger four children for whom care and placement orders are sought, as considered above, they are at risk of the emotional harm from the severing of ties with their birth family and moving to a new family. It does not happen for every child who is adopted, but for some, feelings of not belonging, of feeling abandoned or not good enough, can be profound and can be lifelong.[85]The Court has to balance these risks of harm against the risks to them if they were to return home, and to consider in all the circumstances, which option would best meet their welfare needs.

Decisions

[86]Turning finally to consider the realistic options for each of the children if they were to be placed away from their parents’ care (the range of powers available to the court, s.1(3)(g) CA1989 and s1(6) ACA2002).[87]I consider that the only realistic option that will meet [Amber], [Beau] and [Connie]’s welfare needs is to grant care orders to the local authority. I endorse the plans for them to remain in long-term foster care.[88][Amber] is settled in her placement and her carers are well able to meet her emotional, physical and educational needs. [Beau] and [Connie] can continue to live together in their current placement for now. Although they face the disruption and uncertainty of a future move, and all three of them will suffer by growing up apart from their siblings and parents, on balance the harm that remaining in foster care may bring is far less than the risk of harm that they would face were they to return home. The harm can be mitigated by seeing their siblings and parents in a safe and managed environment.[89]I am satisfied that making care orders is a necessary and proportionate response to the risks of harm that the children would face if they were returned to the care of their mother or father.[90]Considering the options for the four younger children. As previously mentioned, the disadvantages of foster care are heightened for very young children. The risk of them having to move to different foster carers throughout their childhoods is higher. They face the intrusion of local authority involvement in their lives for virtually their entire childhoods.[91]If this were a case where there were signs that the parents were in a process of making and establishing change, and that those changes could be sustained, then the situation may be different. However, the evidence is overwhelming that at this point they remain in the position they have been in throughout their relationship. There is no realistic prospect at the moment of a change that might enable any of the children to return to their care any time soon. It is not fair for the children to wait until their parents have made the changes that they would need to make to care for their children consistently and safely.[92]Having had regard to all the circumstances, I have concluded that the needs of the four youngest children can only be met by them being subject to care and placement orders. That is the only realistic prospect of giving them the security, stability and consistent care that they need throughout their childhoods and throughout their whole lives.[93]I am satisfied that nothing less than care and placement orders will meet their welfare needs. I am satisfied that these orders represent a necessary and proportionate intervention into the life of this family, in order to secure the welfare of these four children.[94]I dispense with the consent of the parents to the making of placement orders for [Dylan], [Emmie], [Fleur] and [Gabriel].

Contact

[95]The local authority has spent a lot of time considering the arrangements. Ultimately they will be subject to change, because it will depend on a number of factors. Not just the parents’ ability to commit to contact and to support the children to settle in their placements, but where the children are living, how they are feeling about having contact, and how they manage it, their other commitments and the commitments of the carers[96]Following discussion with the guardian, the local authority has amended its care plan for [Dylan], [Emmie], [Fleur] and [Gabriel] so that any prospective adopters are asked to consider facilitating an annual contact session between all the siblings.[97]The local authority initially proposed an additional contact between [Shannon] and all seven siblings. My experience is that direct contact is now a common request with all prospective adopters.[98]My view is that no promises could or should be made about these group contacts. There are too many pieces of a jigsaw that would need to fit together.[99]Much will depend on the needs of each of the children at the particular time, and the views of the adoptive parents about what is in their best interests. It may also be that the physical and emotional demands of managing contact with all seven children together may be a lot for [Shannon], and it might be better for her to spend time with the children individually or in smaller groups.[100]Having said that, it is positive that there is an acknowledgment of the significance to all of these children of being born into a sibling group of seven, and the need to preserve and nurture that part of their identities, and the relationships themselves, to the extent that is possible.[101]It is positive that [Shannon] has established loving relationships with all her children, that she has committed to contact throughout these proceedings, has not done anything to undermine the foster carers who are caring for her children, and that she supported [Emmie] and [Dylan] moving to their prospective adopters in August, before the final hearing.[102]The local authority proposes that [Amber] sees her mother three times a year on her own and three times a year together with [Beau] and [Connie].[103]The local authority proposes that [Beau] and [Connie] would only see their mother four times a year; three times with [Amber] and once in a bigger sibling group.[104]Given the uncertainties around the big sibling group contact being achieved, and the likelihood that it would not afford [Shannon] individual time with any of her children, I would propose that some more reliable contact was set up to ensure that [Beau] and [Connie] can spend some time with their mum.[105]I suggest [Shannon] has contact with her children who are in foster care once a month. For [Amber], [Beau] and [Connie] I would suggest a mixture of contacts where they are all together, and some where they see their mum on their own, or perhaps two of them together.[106]I would support maternal grandmother being invited to join in some of these contact sessions.[107]If the contacts for all the siblings can happen, I suggest they take place on one or more of the twelve contacts a year already arranged for [Amber], [Beau] and [Connie] and their mother.[108]I agree with the local authority’s plan for [Dan] to see [Amber], [Beau] and [Connie] twice a year and to have letterbox contact with the younger four children who are to be adopted.[109]In addition the local authority may be able to provide for regular indirect contact between the siblings through video calls or the exchange of video notes. HHJ Joanna Vincent Family Court, Reading 2 October 2025 THE FAMILY COURT SITTING AT READING IN THE MATTER OF S31 CHILDREN ACT 1989 AND IN THE MATTER OF [AMBER], [BEAU], [CONNIE], [DYLAN], [EMMIE], [FLEUR] AND [GABRIEL] AGREED SECTION 31(2) THRESHOLD 13 AUGUST 2025 By reason of the below, at the relevant date, namely 1 October 2024, the children were suffering, and likely to suffer, significant harm; and that harm and likelihood of harm was attributable to the care given to them, and likely to be given to them if an order were not made, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give them:

THE FAMILY COURT SITTING AT READING

[1]Domestic Abuse and criminal behaviour a. The children have witnessed domestic abuse, parental aggressive and criminal behaviour and have been exposed to inappropriate comments. Particulars include: i. On 29.08.24 [Dan] was racially abusive towards the social worker calling him a “black cunt” in the presence of the children and saying to [Amber] “we do not like black people do we”. ii. [Shannon] has a criminal history with 12 theft and kindred offences and one offence relating to police/courts/prisons iii. On occasion [Shannon] has taken the children with her to shoplift. Looking back [Shannon] accepts that this behaviour has had a big impact on the children and very much regrets it. iv. [Shannon] was sentenced to a Community Rehabilitation Order on [date redacted] for offences [in 2021 and 2022] v. [Dan] has an extensive criminal history with 27 theft and kindred offences, 14 offences relating to police/courts/prisons, 1 drug offence and 22 miscellaneous offences vi. [Dan] has frequently failed to engage with probation. He has shown a complete disregard for court orders. OASys has assessed his behaviour capable of having a negative impact on a child’s wellbeing. vii. [Dan] poses a high risk of harm to children, high risk to intimate partners and known adults and professionals (Probation assessment)[2]Parental drug use a. The children suffered significant emotional harm and neglect from exposure to parental drug use: i. [Shannon] has tested positive for using cocaine between March 2024 to September 2024 ii. [Dan] uses and deals with cocaine and will shoplift to fund his drug habit[3]Neglect of children’s educational needs a. The children have poor school attendance: i. [Amber]’s school attendance since moving to [redacted] School in April 2024 until July 2024 was 75.4%. ] ii. [Connie]’s school attendance was 68.24% between the period 06.09.23 to 19.07.24 [F228] iii. [Connie]’s school have not always been able to consistently contact the parents when neede]. Parental engagement has been inconsistent iv. [Beau]’s school attendance was 71.8% for the academic year Sept 2023 to July 2024 which has put him behind his peers academically and socially v. Parents engagement with [redacted] School in respect of [Beau] has been inconsistent[4]Neglect of basic care and hygienea. The children have poor dental hygiene and the parents have not taken the children to a dentist for regular check-upsb. [Beau] has had 12 teeth removedc. [Connie] has rotten teeth and a total of 10 teeth extracted