Birmingham City Council v R & Ors [2026] EWFC 124 (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 BM25C50197[2026] EWFC 124 (B)
IN THE FAMILY COURT AT BIRMINGHAM
Venue Birmingham Civil & Family Justice Centre
The Priory Courts
33 Bull Street
Venue Birmingham
B4 6DS
Date of hearing: 17 April 2026
Before
DISTRICT JUDGE PARKER
Between
BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCILApplicant(1) RRespondents(2) BRespondent(3) THE CHILD (Through their Children’s Guardian)RespondentMR R CHAHAL appeared for ApplicantMS J LEEDHAM appeared for First RespondentMS M STOKES appeared for Second RespondentMS K HODGES appeared for Third RespondentJUDGMENTDigital Transcription by Marten Walsh Cherer Ltd.2 nd Floor, Quality House, 6-9 Quality Court, Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1HP.Telephone No: 020 7067 2900. DX 410 LDEEmail: info@martenwalshcherer.comWeb: www.martenwalshcherer.comDate 2026-04-17
DISTRICT JUDGE PARKER:
[1]I am dealing with a child who was born on 11th July 2025. This is an application by the Local Authority for a final care and placement order for that child.[2]The parents’ difficulties can be summarised as: Significant drug misuse; mental health problems; and the father’s extensive criminal history. The parents have also not actively engaged within the proceedings.[3]The child, when born, was poorly in hospital suffering withdrawal symptoms.[4]The initial evidence of the Local Authority highlights the parents’ difficulties in relation to parental substance misuse, poor mental health, association with risky adults, criminality, lack of stable home and chaotic lifestyle.[5]A pre-birth assessment was negative and did not recommend further assessments due to the parental entrenched substance misuse including heroin and crack cocaine and parental mental ill health; lack of stable home; chaotic lifestyle; lack of support network; father’s criminal behaviour; parenting capacity and lack of engagement with professionals.[6]The prognosis was considered poor, and their relationship was very much co-dependent.[7]I note that there was a hair strand test on the mother that proved positive for cannabis, cocaine, morphine, codeine, diazepam and heroin, she accepts usage as evidenced in the results.[8]An interim care order was made on 24th July of 2025.[9]I have seen reports from CGL which shows that mother’s engagement was sporadic. She only attended two out of nine appointments. She is still using.[10]There is a probation report in relation to father which details a long offending history and lack of engagement, the re-offending risk is high. There are a limited number of protective factors. He continues to use drugs; his accommodation is unstable; he has a lack of employment and associates with criminal peers.[11]I note from the recitals to the order of 8th August 2025 that the mother wished to effect change. Matters were timetabled to an issues resolution hearing.[12]Subsequent to that, a paternal cousin and partner wished to be assessed. That assessment was initially negative. They sought to challenge it, and it was agreed to be re-visited and proceed to a full assessment.[13]Further evidence was filed. The statement from the neo-natal nurse records that the parents visited the child erratically and made irregular phone calls to enquire about her wellbeing. Despite showing love and affection they continued to use illicit drugs.[14]The midwife’s statement records that the parent’s engagement with maternity services was poor and that the mother continues to use. Post birth the mother left the maternity unit for long periods and was not always contactable.[15]There is a statement from a family support worker detailing the work to be undertaken with the parents.[16]There is a further statement from a further midwife setting out concerns as to the parent’s lack of engagement and chaotic lifestyle. Overall, the parents are adjudged not currently able to provide a safe and nourishing environment to the child.[17]A report from CGL in relation to the father reports that he is still testing positive for heroin and cocaine. A report from his GP states that he suffers with an anxiety disorder and refers to his drug use. Both reports report the father’s non-engagement[18]Mum’s GP reports that she has a mental and behavioural disorder due to dependency on drugs. She also has mixed anxiety and depressive disorder.[19]The police disclosure is extensive; in relation to mum showing drug offences from 2009 to 2014 and father from 2011 to 2023, there are 138 entries.[20]By order of 14th November 2025, it records that mother accepts that she has not yet abstained. Father also accepts that he is still using. They remain in a relationship. They support the full assessment of the alternative carers put forward.[21]As they had not responded to threshold a further extension was provided, but failing which, the issue of threshold would be considered on the written evidence before the Court.[22]There has been a glimmer of hope in this case, namely a positive assessment of the alternate carers. Sadly, they have subsequently withdrawn from that assessment.[23]Placement directions were thereafter made on 16th March 2026. I made a direction that the child’s name in the Child Permanency Report should reflect the child’s full name as per the birth certificate as well as the outcome of the blood borne infection screening and the detailed clinical assessment and updated medical.[24]The threshold document presented to the Court contains no surprises, namely: Parents’ use of illicit substances and failure to address their addictions; father’s extensive criminal history and failure to engage. Based on the paper evidence before the Court, I find the threshold met for the purpose of making final orders.[25]As I have indicated, there was a kinship assessment of the paternal cousin and her partner. The initial viability was negative but was challenged and the head of service felt that they should be put forward for a full assessment to explore their vulnerabilities further. Sadly, they withdrew before the panel date due to the cousin’s mental health. They were invited to discuss matters, but there has been no further contact with them. It is said that the cousin’s mental health has deteriorated such that she is unable to proceed to care for the child and they can no longer proceed as kinship carers.[26]The independent reviewing officer has ratified the single track for adoption, which has also been endorsed by the agency decision maker. The parents’ family time with their child is erratic and they on occasion have presented under the influence of illicit substances. That rehabilitation to either parent’s care, either jointly or solely, is not safe and is laden with risks due to their addictions.[27]The child’s guardian supports the plan of placement for adoption.[28]The children’s guardian in her final report states that neither parent has been able to address their addictions, and as there is no alternative carers the only viable plan is that of placement for adoption. A long-term foster placement is not appropriate for a child of their age.[29]Neither parent has filed any final evidence.[30]The Local Authority seeks final orders.[31]In the mother’s position statement for this hearing, she accepts that if she were allowed to care for the child, she has a lot of work to do. She is aware of today’s hearing, as is the father, and that matters are likely to be finalised at this hearing being an Issues Resolution and potentially, an early final hearing.[32]I understand that the mother contacted her solicitor shortly before the hearing to say that she no longer wished to instruct her, and an application was made for her to come off the record.[33]I declined that application on the basis that the mother and the father are not here and although neither have attended at this hearing, I am satisfied that they are aware of it and the potential outcome of this case. I do not criticise them for not attending. It may well be that they are resigned to the inevitable as, sadly, the evidence in this case is overwhelming. I therefore declined for the mother’s solicitors to be discharged at this stage on the basis that the mother was not here but, and more particularly, someone needed to be here on her behalf to hear the outcome and to report on it.[34]In relation to the law, I fully appreciate that it is important for children, where possible, to be brought up by their birth family, and that perceptions of parenting should not be elevated to a gold standard.[35]To that end, the Local Authority have a duty to provide families with the support necessary to persevere the family unit wherever possible.[36]There is also an evidential burden that must be met prior to the removal of children from their parents’ care, as set out in Section 31(2) of the Children Act 1989. That provision is there to protect both the children and their parents from unjustified intervention in their lives by the state.[37]In this case however I am satisfied that the threshold is met, and to return to the parents’ care the child would cause the child to suffer significant harm attributable to the care given to them, or likely to be given to them, by their parents due to their addictions and current lifestyle.[38]I must then consider the welfare test under Section 1 of the Children Act to determine what, if any, order is necessary to safeguard the welfare of the child, having regard to the parents’ and child’s rights under Article 6 and Article 8, and determine whether such an order is proportionate to the risk of harm to which they would be exposed if they were allowed to return to their parents’ care.[39]I must also consider that the Court should only permanently separate a child from their parents if satisfied that it is necessary to do so and nothing else will do.[40]I must undertake a global, holistic evaluation of the options available for the child’s future upbringing.[41]Care orders are serious orders that can only be made where the facts justify it and where it is in the child’s overall interests and where it is necessary and proportionate. The aphorism of nothing else will do applies in particular reference to cases such as this involving as it does a plan of adoption, one of the most serious of all court orders which severs the parental relationship all together. Such orders have been described as being at the extreme end of the spectrum, a last resort, and should only be made where nothing else will do.[42]In addition, the process of adoption and the range of realistic options dictates that I must also have regard to Section 1 of the Adoption & Children Act 2002.[43]I am aware and apply the appropriate caselaw in relation to H-W (Children) [2022] UKSC 17, and Re D (A Child: Placement Orders) [2022] EWCA 896. I do not seek to repeat them verbatim.[44]I also have in mind the appropriate provisions of the Adoption & Children Act 2002 in relation to Section 1(2), Section 1(3), and Section 1(5); and indeed the appropriate summaries endorsed by the Court in making such orders as set out in Re C (Children: Revocation of Placement Orders) [2020] EWCA 1598.[45]In summary, in evaluating the whole of the evidence by reference to Section 1(1), Section 2(a), the checklist under Section 1(3) and Section 1(5) of the Children Act 1989; and as relevant in this case, Section 1(2), Section 1 (4) and Section 1 (6) of the Adoption & Children Act 2002, I am driven, when viewing the matter holistically and treating the child’s welfare as paramount, that a placement order is the only order that can meet the child’s immediate and life-long welfare needs, and that adoption is both necessary and proportionate, having regard to the Article 8 rights of the parents and the child concerned. There are effectively only two options in this case: A return to either or both the parents, which due to the facts is untenable; or placement for adoption.[46]I am afraid the only realistic order is that of care orders and placement for adoption which is the right order for this child, and I dispense with the parents’ consent accordingly.[47]This is my decision and the reason for it. Digital Transcription by Marten Walsh Cherer Ltd., 2nd Floor, Quality House, 6-9 Quality Court, Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1HP. Telephone No: 020 7067 2900. DX 410 LDE Email: info@martenwalshcherer.com Web: www.martenwalshcherer.com