Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council v The Mother & Ors [2025] EWFC 78 (B)

[2025] EWFC 78 (B)
IN THE FAMILY COURT AT BOURNEMOUTH
Bournemouth Combined Court
Courts of Justice Deansleigh Road Bournemouth
Dorset BH7 7DS
Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE SIMMONDS
Between
BOURNEMOUTH, CHRISTCHURCH AND POOLE COUNCILAPPLICANTThe MotherRESPONDENTSThe FatherRespondentCHILDREN (VIA THE GUARDIAN)RespondentLegal RepresentationMs Fiona McCreath behalf of the Applicant Local AuthorityMr John Ward-Prowse for Respondent MotherMr Alex Hodge for Respondent FatherMr Neelo Shravat for Respondent Children (via their Children’s Guardian)Other Parties Present and their statusNone knownJudgmentJudgment date: 21 March 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, 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.”His Honour Judge Simmonds:Date 2025-03-21
[1]This is an oral judgment given an the conclusion of an application for Care Orders in respect of six children. The children, whose names I have changed for the purposes of this judgment, are;a. Andrew, who is 14,b. Brian, who is 13,c. Clive, who is 11,d. David, who is 9,e. Edward, who is 6,f. Faye, who is 4. The Local Authority is Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council represented by Ms McCreath, the mother is …represented by Mr Ward-Prowse, the father is…. represented by Mr Hodge, and the guardian is …represented by Mr Shravat.

What the Court has to decide

[2]At the time of this hearing, and indeed throughout their lives, the children have remained at home in the care of their parents. The decision that the Court is being asked to make is a binary one, either the children remain at home or they (or some of them) are removed into the care of the Local Authority. It is the plan of the Local Authority that the children will be separated and they would all be in separate placements. I am clear at the outset that both options for these children have advantages and disadvantages. What is clear to me, and I will set out, is that the children will suffer harm in either option. From the outset, therefore, it is essential that I acknowledge that what I have to determine is what is the least worst option for them.

The parties’ positions

[3]The Local Authority seek Care Orders in respect of the children. It would be on the basis that the three younger children would move now to separate placements, and foster placements have been found. They do not have placements for the older three, although they may in fact have a place for Clive. The plan now would be that all six children are removed at some stage, so really in two tranches.[4]The parents oppose the plan of the Local Authority. They accept that the children have suffered harm in their care but argue that separation is more harmful than the children remaining at home. They also point to the improvements that they have made during these proceedings. The guardian also opposes separation but says that the support being offered by the Local Authority if the children remain at home needs to be more.

The placement plans

[5]There are no in house local placements available for the children. Any placements would have to be via an independent fostering agency. There is no placement available for Andrew or Brian. There may be a placement available for Clive, although that would be a placement with another child and would be around 60 miles from where the children now live. It would be in a different county and would result in a change of school. It is a medium, perhaps long term placement, and, by that, a placement that will last between six and 12 months. David has an out of County placement with a single carer. There would be a change of school. The placement would be for a minimum of six months. Edward would have an out of County placement but placed with a couple. There would be a change of school, and, again, it is a placement that would be medium term, so up to a year. Faye, this is a local placement, she would be the only young person who would be in the placement and it is in Dorset. It is a medium term placement, so hopefully between six months to a year.[6]Because all of those placements are independent foster agency placements they are costly, and I am told that the cost is over £1,000 per week per child. As there are no placements for the older children, the Local Authority would continue to look for placements. The plan would be that the younger three children are removed, the older children remain at home, and then they would be removed as and when placements were available. The Local Authority say that they would be reluctant to look at a residential placement for Andrew or Brian but that would be considered as a last resort.

This is a large family

[7]This is a family of six, ranging from fourteen to four. Each of the children have their own complexities and present very differently. Some are quiet, others hyperactive, loud and impulsive. The home is hectic at the best of times and it would be difficult, I am clear, for anybody to care for such a large group of children with such varying needs.

The background

[8]This family has been known to the Local Authority for some 20 years. Mother has two older children not subject to these proceedings. All six children have been subject to child protection planning which commenced on 22 February 2023. There have been two sets of pre-proceedings, one in April 2023 and then before that in 2021. The concerns throughout have been the same.[9]The father’s use of alcohol, which, on my reading, has been an ongoing issue since 2012, domestic abuse, which the parents tell me that alcohol has been a major contributing factor, the parental relationship, poor home conditions, although to their credit that hasn’t been an issue during these proceedings, aggression towards the children, poor school attendance, limited boundaries and routine, and a failure to meet medical needs to include the children’s dental needs. As I have said, the home is seen to be chaotic. The children’s individual needs have got lost.[10]I have been told throughout that there is a great deal of love, and the home is full of love, and that came both from the professional evidence but also from the evidence of the parents.[11]The Local Authority say that this is a case of long term neglect where improvements are made but then the home conditions and the life of the children deteriorate.[12]There was an incident of domestic abuse between the parents and the father had to leave the family home in July 2024. These proceedings were commenced, and, to his credit, the father engaged well with the Parental Substance Misuse Court (our equivalent of FDAC) and he was able to return to the family home on 13 August 2024, where he has remained, and the parents have continued to care for the children together.

The Law

[13]The Court can make an order under section 31 of the Children Act 1989 if the Applicant Local Authority can satisfy the Court that, at the time protective measures were taken, the children, considered individually, were suffering, or likely to suffer, significant harm, and that harm, or likelihood of harm, is attributed to the care given to the child, or likely to be given to the child, not being what it would it would reasonable to expect a parent to give to a child. The burden of proof falls on the Local Authority. The standard of proof is the balance of probabilities[14]The finding of threshold pursuant to s.31 gives the Court jurisdiction to make the order sought. The fact, though, that the threshold is met is just one stage of the process. I am not bound to make a Care Order. I must consider what order best meets the welfare of each of the children, their welfare being my paramount consideration.[15]I have full regard to the following principles; - As I have said, the paramount consideration of the court when considering the outcome for a child is that child’s welfare. - Wherever possible, and in accordance with the child’s needs, a child deserves to be brought up within their birth family. In YC v United Kingdom (2012) 55 EHRR 967, the court stated: “Family ties may only be severed in very exceptional circumstances and everything must be done to preserve personal relationships, and, where appropriate, to ‘rebuild’ the family. It is not enough to show that a child can be placed in a more beneficial environment for his upbringing.” - The Court must consider all options before coming to a decision. The Court must undertake an assessment the parents ability to discharge their responsibilities towards the child, taking into account the assistance and support which the Local Authority could offer to them. - That principle is underpinned by the application of the least interventionalist principle enshrined under section 1(6) of the Act and the right to family life, pursuant to article 8. Any interference in family life must be proportionate.

Parenting with support

[16]Section 17(1) Children Act 1989 provides that:
“It shall be the general duty of every local authority (a) to safeguard and promote the welfare of children within their area who are in need, and, (b) so far as is consistent with that duty to promote the upbringing of such children by their families, by providing the range and level of services appropriate to their needs.”
[17]There is of course an obligation on the state under Article 8 to provide support to enable children to remain with their families. I have reminded myself of the words of Hedley J in Re L (Care: Threshold Criteria) (2007) 1 FLR 2050:
“(50) Society must be willing to tolerate very diverse standards for parenting including the eccentric, the barely adequate and the inconsistent. It follows too that children will inevitably have both very different experiences of parenting and very unequal consequences flowing from it. It means that some children will experience disadvantage and harm, while others flourish in atmospheres of loving security and emotional stability. These are the consequences of our fallible humanity and it is not the provenance of the state to spare children all the consequences of defective parenting. In any event, it simply could not be done. (51) That is not, however, to say that state has no role, as the 1989 Act fully demonstrates. Nevertheless, the 1989 Act, wide ranging though the court’s and social services’ powers may be, is to be operated in the context of the policy I have sought to describe. In essence, in Part III of the 1989 Act, is the concept of working in partnership with families who have children in need. Only exceptionally should the state intervene with compulsive powers and then only when a court is satisfied that significant harm criteria under section 31(2) is made out.”
[18]That passage was cited by Lord Neuberger in Re B (A Child) (2013) UKSC 33 who observed at paragraph 105:
“The assessment of (the parents’) ability to discharge their responsibilities must of course take into account the assistance and support which the authorities could offer. The approach is the same as that suggested by Hedley J in the passage quoted in paragraph 67 above, and I agree with it. It means that before making an adoption order in such a case, the court must be satisfied that there is no practical way of the authorities (or others) providing the requisite assistance and support.”
[19]And in Re B-S (Children) (Adoption: Leave to Oppose) (2013) EWCA Civ 1146 at paragraphs 28 to 29, Sir James Mumby (P), cited Lord Luigrove’s work and observed:
“It is the obligation of the local authority to make the order which the court has determined is proportionate work. The local authority cannot press for a more drastic form of order, least of all press for adoption, because it is unable or unwilling to support a less interventionist form of order. Judges must be alert to the point and must be rigorous in exploring and probing local authority thinking in cases where there is any reason to suspect that resource issues may be affecting the local authority’s thinking.”

The evidence witnessed and my findings

[20]The fact that I do not mention something in this judgment does not mean that I have not fully considered it, but it is impossible to set out in this judgment everything I have heard and read. I, of course, am not required to rehearse all the evidence and submissions before me. My role is to highlight those matters relevant to my assessment and how I have come to my decision.

The threshold

[21]I accept and adopt the threshold documents agreed by the parties. That will be attached to the final order.

The children

[22]Andrew. He is the oldest child of the family. He was diagnosed with autism in 2020 and language disorder in 2021. He has a learning delay. He obtains an enormous amount of reassurance from his parents’ presence. He looks to his father for discussion and his mother for affection. He has struggled to go to school. I have seen an up to date report from his school, which is a specialist school, that shows that his attendance has improved dramatically, although it is still just under 25%. He has a new tutor. I am told that that is going well. They collect Andrew from home in the morning. They are going to work with him on basic maths, English and other skills to include visiting in the community. In their most recent report, they say this:
“To summarise, Andrew has made significant progress with his attendance and engagement this academic year. He now wants to go to school and to the local library to study. Andrew is comfortable to travel in different staff cars which is enabling him to access school from the local community. Andrew was previously too anxious to leave home.”
[23]All agree that Andrew has made significant improvements recently. He has a very good relationship and a trusting relationship with the adults that are working with him and specifically his school.[24]The independent social worker felt that a foster placement would be the best place for Andrew, but if that was not available she thought a residential placement that incorporates trained staff with educational and emotional support would be best, although she acknowledged that he would struggle alongside other young people.[25]The fact that he is now attending school is real progress. He does not attend any outside clubs like his siblings but, in reality, that is not surprising given Andrew’s presentation. It is agreed that Andrew struggles to go out in the community because of his autism and therefore the likelihood of being able to attend contact with his siblings in a place that he is not familiar with will be difficult. Further, the introduction of a whole raft of new people for Andrew would be very confusing and harmful.[26]The parents, I am told, are working with a support worker. The guardian tells me that they are doing all that they can to support Andrew and get him to school. The guardian’s view about placement is that finding a suitable placement for Andrew is going to be difficult, but also that there was a significant risk of placement breakdown given his age and his presentation.[27]Brian. Brian can be quick to anger but also is very keen to please. He is currently excluded from school and now has the benefit of daily tutoring and a mentor. He can become aggressive in the community. There have been worries that he has become involved in antisocial behaviour. The Local Authority are concerned that Brian has no routine and that he will sleep during the day and be awake at night, and therefore wakes his siblings.[28]The independent social worker was worried that Brian would be a child that would not achieve in a residential setting. It would reinforce to him that he cannot be managed outside of the family unit, he will struggle with young people, but also that he is highly impressionable and he is at a real risk of forming unhealthy relationships with peers who could endeavour to exploit him. What he needs is a placement in which he could build a trusting relationship.[29]Because of the risk of Brian in the community, the parents do not allow him, at the moment, to go outside without supervision. Although this is restrictive, it appears everybody suggests this is necessary. There are real concerns that Brian shows all signs of ADHD and assessment of him was declined for reasons, I must say, I find unfathomable. His attendance both in respect of his tutor and his mentor is just under 90%.[30]Clive. Clive has settled well at school. His attendance is positive. He is more quiet than his siblings. He wants peace and quiet. At the same time, he does not want to be separated from his siblings. He looks to his parents for his sources of affection and love. He has a borderline language disorder and there are key areas of weakness in his communication. The Local Authority say that he needs a placement that is very sensitive and attuned to his needs and sensitive and attuned carers. All parties agree that a residential placement would not be suitable for him. Indeed, his needs do not warrant such a placement, and, again, his characteristics, I am told, would mean that he would be at high risk to be exposed to being exploited and at risk from others.[31]David. David has an EHCP plan linked to his learning disability. He is well below his age related expectations and he has a diagnosis of developmental language disorder, which I am told is a disorder that interferes with his learning, understanding and use of language. He is a popular boy at school and his attendance is just under 98%. David can feel bullied by his siblings and has told the social worker that he is scared of his three older siblings.[32]It is agreed that he has improved in confidence both at home and school. He is enjoying after school and weekend clubs that the parents have organised. He could be placed with his younger sister. The school say that he attends presentable each day. There were some worries in February that he would attend school tired and falling asleep during the day. They were worried that he had not had breakfast on occasions. The school say that recently David has appeared, on the whole, less tired, and has managed, mostly, to stay awake in the last couple of weeks.[33]Edward. He struggles with speech and struggles with managing his emotions. The guardian tells me, in her most recent enquiries, that there are more boundaries in place for Edward and he is listening more, which is an improvement. I am told that the Local Authority say the best place for him would be foster care but he could live with his younger sister. His school attendance is just under 97%. There was a worry in February that his mother restrained him when he was hitting her. That has not been explored before me, or the evidence adduced, and no finding is sought, but I appreciate that the Local Authority’s case is that a risk of physical harm by the parents towards their children remains. This is not that they will randomly hit or hurt the children but that they will restrain the children and cause harm.[34]Faye. Faye has hip dysplasia. There is concern that she may suffer absences and seizures, and she did have a fit last year that the parents managed extremely well. Her attendance at nursery is around 95%. She has the ability to make strong bonds. The guardian tells me that an assessment for Faye as being on the autistic spectrum should not be discounted. Professionals have observed a lot of love and affection between her and her siblings, and, certainly more recently, it is said that there has been a real shift in the dynamics between the siblings. Faye is the only girl and the baby of the family is clearly adored by her siblings.

Sibling assessment

[35]In the sibling assessment, I am told that Edward and Faye are close and indeed Edward worships her. All the boys enjoy time with her, save Clive, who is disinterested. But all the children compete for their needs to be met and therefore any dip in the parenting impacts on their ability to have those needs met.[36]There are a number of shared interests. Andrew, Brian, Clive and Edward all love football. The independent social worker, though, in her sibling assessment said that the home is so chaotic and the physical interaction is so high she was quite shocked that there had not been any serious harm to the children, and there had not been, but thought that as a group is was physically dangerous, and why, therefore, her recommendation, in essence, was that all of these children go to separate placements. Contact 43. Before looking at the realistic options, it is necessary to consider what the plans, if the children were all removed, would be. Starkly, it will be that these children would not, in the foreseeable future, be all together again. They would all be in separate placements and I am told that is because the arrangements are so complex and the logistics so difficult that just would not be possible. Andrew, because of his own needs, struggles to leave the home, and everybody agrees it would be a struggle for him to go to see his siblings. Contact would be every four weeks and different combination of sibling and a maximum of 4 children at any one time.[37]I am told that the foster carers for the younger three children, although three separate foster placements and geographically different, are part of the same independent fostering agency. As such, they would meet up regularly socially and there is likely to be time that the younger children would be together. How often that is, I do not know, and indeed I got the impression that that was more anecdotal than reality.

The realistic options

[38]As I said at the start of this judgment, they are stark. Care Orders with the children, either now or in the future, being removed from the care of their parents and being placed in separate foster placements or remaining at home with the parents. The parents would agree a Supervision Order and they would agree for support to be provided. There are no family or friends able to care for the children. At the start, there were numerous people who were considered but none of them was either considered appropriate or willing to pursue the assessment.

A summary of the evidence

[39]The support to date is important to consider. The Local Authority have needed to support the family. When these proceedings started, I made clear to the Local Authority the need to support the family. I commented that this family was lost, that there was lots of children, and help and support was both necessary and essential to keep this family together or to give them the best opportunity to stay together.[40]The Local Authority put in place a worker to work with the family weekly. They undertook six hours of work every week with the family. That came to an end in August. Since August, the family have had the benefit of a family support worker on a weekly basis for one or two hours. I have the benefit of a statement from that worker who clearly has seen improvements and has a good relationship with the family. The Local Authority have provided to this family one or two hours’ worth of family support work per week, nothing more.[41]The independent social worker has of course undertaken the parenting assessment and it is argued that that formed part of the support. In my Judgment it did not. It was an assessment. The social worker, clearly, has been supportive to the family and those visits have been taking place during the assessment, but they will of course be infrequent and in accordance with his workload.[42]There is a professional group around the family. This has been there for a while. Everybody agrees that the children’s schools are exceptionally supportive. They know this family and they know these children. It must be remembered that, should these children be removed, the support from their schools would be lost, save Faye, who could remain at her nursery. The health visitor for Faye has a good relationship in supporting the mother. The school nurse at the children’s other school is supportive, and the father has had the benefit of support from Up2U, a local domestic abuse charity.

Contact

[43]It is important to outline the support that these parents have received during these proceedings, because I am clear that they have made improvements, and therefore those improvements need to be seen either as a result of support or as a result of the motivation and commitment of the parents.

The Independent Social Worker

[44]The independent social worker undertook the parenting assessment and is a very experienced social worker. Her report is dated 1 November 2024 and her assessment concluded in October 2024. Both from her evidence and also the other professional evidence, I was able to put together both the positives and negatives of options before me for these children. The positives[45]There is a lot of love. The home conditions are good enough. It is less cluttered and it is tidy. The children’s rooms are appropriate, indeed, they are individually decorated to their own specific needs. The parents are able to meet most of the children’s practical needs, food, clothing etc. The parents can manage all appointments and there are no outstanding appointments and the dental matters have been addressed.[46]The father has stopped drinking. The independent social worker accepted that this was incredible and I am clear that all professionals agree that he has stopped drinking alcohol, and that has now been for some time.[47]There have been improvements in the family relationship, the way that they communicate, and there are no reports of domestic abuse.[48]They have been receptive to support. They have introduced, off their own bat, extra curriculum activities for the children. These are picked individually for each child and the children are benefiting for them.[49]The home itself is more calm and I take that from the parenting support worker’s statement. When Faye had a seizure, they coped with the crisis extremely well. The mother, at the Child Review Conference, was able, with support, to articulate what the issues were.[50]Routines are improving. Boundaries are being introduced and being maintained. The social worker tells me in his January statement:
“There is evidence of the start of positive impacts on the children as the parents change.”
The negatives[51]The sheer number of children is overwhelming, especially given their specialist needs.[52]The parents’ failure to keep up improvements and this is part of a long history. In the past, they just have not been sustained.[53]The lack of boundaries. The children can present as being out of control.[54]The children will not achieve their potential. There is a low expectation for the children, i.e. life is such you just have to get on with it.[55]There can be shouting and raised voices. Although improvements in the parents’ relationship, there are still issues in the dynamics. There is a lack of understanding of the impact of the problems, both with alcohol and domestic abuse, and the impact that has on children.[56]The children’s individual needs are lost. Although the parents have been motivated, it is more the threat of removal that has motivated than the genuine desire. The independent social worker questions whether the parents would accept further support.[57]The independent social worker also accepted the worries about the placement options and availability. She accepted that removal was going to be traumatic and harmful and that she had not assessed the improvements since October. On balance though, the independent social worker was of the view that the children could not stay at home.[58]I found the independent social worker an impressive witness with two caveats. She had not worked with the family for five months and she had not observed the improvements which everybody accepts. Secondly, her assessment, in my judgment, was very much rooted in the past without a more detailed assessment of the improvements.

The family support practitioner

[59]She did not give evidence to me but she has worked with the family now for over a year. From her report, I am clear that there have been improvements with the following.(1) boundaries,(2) sleep routines,(3) more structure,(4) the attendance on a neurodivergent course, and(5) the parents themselves identifying their own triggers. What is clear is that things have got more positive as time has gone on, and she says that:
“This shift appears to stem from their involvement with X parenting sessions (the ones that ended in August) which empowered them to establish routines and boundaries. Prior to this there were minimal changes with the home, although home conditions have improved since before my involvement.”
[60]So what that tells me is that when the parenting assessor, who ended her role in August, became involved, the parents were able to make improvements, but, more importantly, since August, those improvements have been maintained and built on. Those positive changes to the home have included improved relationships with the children, although I appreciate this is seen from short interactions only, more constructive communication between the parents, and, as I have said, better routine.[61]The family support worker is still involved with the family. Because of her own working hours, her support, in fact, is with the parents during the day and not addressing the morning and evenings which are the real points of concern of the Local Authority.

The social worker

[62]The social worker has worked hard with this family. He accepts that the parents have worked hard. He accepts they have made improvements. He told me about the committed group of professionals around the family, but he is worried about the inconsistencies. He is worried it will not be sustained and that really that is the history that these children have experienced. He tells me as the children get older there will be no consistency in parenting, and their outcomes will be limited, and they will really struggle to be successful adults.[63]He had to accept in evidence, in my judgment, that the support provided by the Local Authority has been limited, but his view is that there is very little that the Local Authority could do, and, indeed, if the children remained at home then the Local Authority’s view was that the support that they would provide under a Supervision Order would be one hour’s support a week. In reality, that is what the Local Authority could achieve. He acknowledges the problems with removing the younger three and keeping the older three at home, and also the risks of the children being removed.

The parents

[64]There is no doubt that they have failed their children. They love their children, but they accept their children have suffered harm in their care. I have no doubt they want to do their best. They know that their children are neurodiverse and have very different needs. They have sought out both courses and, more recently, classes and activities for the children to join. Edward now attends boxing on a Tuesday and a Thursday. He does circuits on Sunday and football on a Saturday. Faye goes to ballet on a Tuesday and gymnastics on a Thursday. Clive, football on a Wednesday and Sunday, Brian, the hope is that he is going to join Army Cadets or football but it does depend on what his mentor says. David attends swimming on Sunday and football on Saturday. The parents have organised all of these, they have funded all of these, and they are very much tailored to the needs of their children.[65]What struck me when the parents gave evidence was just how much they knew and understood their children and how much they cared for them. I am clear, and I accept, that the father has stopped drinking. I am clear that alcohol was and has been a real issue for them and it is something that he cannot get back to. But his stopping drinking at the commencement of these proceedings has been a significant change in this family.[66]Further, like the Guardian, I consider that the change we see will be maintained on balance as the parents are seeing the real benefit to the children and to their own lives.

The guardian

[67]The guardian tells me that since the commencement of these proceedings there has been significant change. She highlights the father ceasing to use alcohol, the relationship between the parents has improved, that the father’s temper clearly has reduced and there has been no incidents with the children. The home conditions are good enough, the children’s rooms, as I have said, are decorated in personalised themes. The garden is clear and offers a good place for the children to play. School attendance remains poor. Routines are still a concern and, of course, there is still a concern about boundaries. Things are not therefore what the guardian would want them to be, but they are getting better.[68]The parents have engaged with professionals, but, more importantly, the parents themselves have worked hard to improve matters. They have ensured the children’s dental issues have been addressed and there is no outstanding health appointments, that Andrew is attending school and his very specialist needs are being addressed.[69]She tells me that these parents need to develop their understanding of neurodivergence, that it is essential that they work with professionals, and that what they cannot do is do what they have done in the past, namely, disengage when the heat is off. She tells me that since the independent social worker assessment there have been improvements and those improvements are such that these children should stay at home. She accepts that the care given by the parents at home is on the cusp of good enough, bouncing really along the line, saying in her report:
“This is a finely balanced situation. I have considered all the information very carefully and, whilst I recognise the concerns, I do not feel able to support the Local Authority’s application for Care Orders and removal into foster care. I consider that, whilst there are still risks, [the mother and father] have made sufficient change to say that remaining with them is still the best option for these children when balanced together with the risks associated with unplanned, unmatched foster placements. I therefore support a 12 month Supervision Order with an ongoing plan for family support to build on the progress that has been made.”

What support is offered if the children stay at home?

[70]In my judgment, very little. The supervision support plan provides; a review meeting every four weeks, social work visit every four weeks, a family support worker attending weekly, a referral to specialist parenting courses, and then everything else falling to the parents. The social worker was candid in evidence. He told me that Local Authority resources are limited and it is not possible to provide an assurance of high levels of support. It is not the role of the Local Authority to provide substituted parenting. When asked what was needed, he thought somebody in the morning and at night. I am told the cost of an independent social worker to provide that, locally, is about £60 an hour.[71]The guardian suggested that the plan of the Local Authority was disappointing and they could be more creative. The guardian thought that more hands on provision could be provided, really somebody being there, teaching, assisting and supporting the family.[72]I am very grateful the Local Authority made the enquiries that they did of the independent social worker and that there is that support out there. I appreciate that what this family would need, it is suggested, is somebody in in the morning and in in the evening, really to help with routine and boundaries. If that were three hours a day, an hour in the morning and two hours after school, that would be 15 hrs per week, or, to put it more bluntly, under the cost of one foster placement for one of these children.

Discussion

[73]The parents love their children very much. The children love them and there is on all the evidence good attachments. They will be able to meet their practical needs. They are, I find, making improvements. The home is calmer. They are trying to impose routine and boundaries but clearly need more assistance. With support on balance the improvements will continue. I accept that the benefits are already being seen and experienced by the children.[74]There is a risk that things will revert to the way they were, that things will deteriorate and the children’s needs would not be met. I accept that is a real risk.[75]That even at the moment the children’s needs are, on the guardian’s evidence, just being met, that the home conditions are overwhelming. The children will not achieve their full potential, that there is a risk that the father will revert to alcohol, that there will be shouting and raised voices, that there may be the grabbing, pushing and pulling, and therefore physical interaction with the children, and there will sometimes be difficulties in the parental relationship.[76]Even if the father remains alcohol free there will be still times of shouting in the home.[77]Despite the positives that I have set out I accept that in these parents’ care, these children will suffer harm. They will not meet their full potential. They will not have their individual needs met on a regular basis. There will be conflict between the siblings. It will be a chaotic home, and sometimes they will witness their parents shouting at each other and maybe at them.[78]Long term fostering will mean that the children will have carers who will be assessed as meeting their individual needs. They will have both their physical and emotional needs met. They will be encouraged to reach their full potential. Individual work will be done with each child to deal with their own specific needs and behaviours. Those are enormous advantages to these children.[79]The disadvantage is that these placements will not be long-term. At best, some if not all will come to an end within 12 months. They are out of county and a distance away. As a sibling group they will be separated, and, for the foreseeable future, they will never be together as a sibling group. In my judgment, there is a real risk, that cannot be ignored, that each of these children would experience multiple placements. In my judgment, that will have an enormous impact on them. They will lose the support of their schools and the professional network that is working well. Both the independent social worker, the social worker and the guardian accepted that. The independent social worker suggested that a child’s care experience on average, sees five placement moves. I do not know how accurate that is. The work of the Children’s Commissioner, although now some 5 years old, suggested that one in four children in care, in both 2018 and 2019, had experienced two or more placement moves over two years and that the risk of placement moves increases, and the risk of multiple placement increases as children get older. Older children are more likely to experience multiple placement moves in a year than other children in care.[80]That of course is a matter well known to the family Court. Long term foster care in precarious and certainly over the last few years it is getting harder to find local placements for children. In this case the local authority have been searchng for considerable time to find placements and they have not been able for all.

Decision

[81]Therefore, standing back, and bringing all these facts together in my holistic analysis, I consider the best option for these children is to remain at home. In my judgment, that is the least worst option for them, and that these children will suffer harm in either option available to them, for the reasons I have set out. I have set out the type of harm. I have set out, in my judgment, the fact that it is real in both settings. In one setting, with the parents, there is at least the stability of them being and remaining together. I look at the parents being on a trajectory of improvement.[82]In my judgment, the risks in foster care I cannot mitigate any further, but the risks at home I can mitigate by inviting the Local Authority to reconsider its support plan and offering support services. With that support matters will, on balance, continue to improve. In my judgment, therefore, when I stand back, the children remaining at home it is more proportionate than removing, and that removing them is neither necessary or proportionate on the evidence. In coming to that decision I reiterate the words of Hedley J above, “Society must be willing to tolerate very diverse standards for parenting including the eccentric, the barely adequate and the inconsistent. It follows too that children will inevitably have both very different experiences of parenting and very unequal consequences flowing from it. It means that some children will experience disadvantage and harm, while others flourish in atmospheres of loving security and emotional stability. These are the consequences of our fallible humanity and it is not the provenance of the state to spare children all the consequences of defective parenting”[83]In my judgment, a need for long term support throughout the children’s minority should not be a barrier to the children remaining at home. This is not substitute parenting but parenting with support, and I invite the Local Authority to reconsider its plans and to consider putting additional support in to this family.[84]So, for all those reasons, I refuse the application of the Local Authority for a Care Order. I am clear that these children should remain at home in the care of their parents. The parents accept the making of a Supervision Order and I agree that this family need the help and assistance that such an order will bring. I am going to invite the Local Authority to reconsider its support plan and to consider what additional support they can give to the family and I am very happy to give the Local Authority some time to do that. 92. Postscript – the support plan was amended and provided for support to the family for 1 hr in the morning on a Monday, Wednesday and Friday and 2 hrs in the evening on a Monday, Wednesday and Thursday. This Transcript has been approved by the Judge. The Transcription Agency hereby certifies that the above is an accurate and complete recording of the proceedings or part thereof. The Transcription Agency, 24-28 High Street, Hythe, Kent, CT21 5AT Tel: 01303 230038 Email: court@thetranscriptionagency.com