C & Ors (Children: Placement or Special Guardianship), Re [2026] EWFC 231 (B)
[2026] EWFC 231 (B)Case No ZW25C50053IN THE FAMILY COURT AT WEST LONDONWest London Family CourtGloucester House, 4 Duke Green Avenue,Feltham, TW14 0LRDate 12 August 2026
Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE WILLANS
Between
A Local AuthorityApplicantARespondentsBRespondentC, D, E, F by their children’s guardian)RespondentGRespondentTara Vindis (instructed by Local Authority Legal Department) for ApplicantLaura Hibberd (instructed by Hanne & Co) for First RespondentKristina Hopper (instructed by Ewings Solicitors) for Second RespondentSharan Bhachu (instructed by Harris Temperley LLP) for Third – Sixth RespondentsAnne-Marie Glover (instructed by Shepherd Harris & Co) for Seventh RespondentHearing Hearing dates: 20-23 July and 12 August 2026JUDGMENT
[1]The proceedings subject to this judgment commenced in February 2025 and are now in week 77. The children whose welfare is paramount within this judgment are [C] (aged 7); [D] (aged 3); [E] (aged 2), and [F] (aged 10 months and born into the proceedings).[2]The applicant local authority supported by the children’s guardian seek final care and placement orders for all four children with a plan for adoption, the detail of which will be set out later within this judgment. The children’s parents accept they are not placed to provide care for the children within their timescales but instead support placement with the mother’s mother, the MGM who has been joined as a party. They argue for the children to be placed with the MGM whether under a final care order, special guardianship order supported by a supervision order or special guardianship order alone. Failing such placement, they would argue for the children to be placed into long term foster care as opposed to being adopted.[3]The focus of the hearing has been on(1) the potential care that the MGM can provide and consideration of the strengths and weaknesses of this care;(2) the size of the sibling group, their respective ages and the potential for all the children to be placed for adoption together, and;(3) the contact arrangements that should arise depending on the placement outcome determined by the Court.[4]I heard evidence and submissions over four days and adjourned to prepare and circulate this judgment. I have kept in mind(a) the documentary evidence found within the hearing bundle alongside a number of additional documents, including video evidence provided for my consideration;(b) the live witness evidence of the special guardianship assessor, the parenting assessor, the social worker, the guardian and the three family members, and;(c) the submissions made by counsel for all parties. I will not reference all of the information I have received within this judgment focusing only on that which is required to explain the conclusions I have reached. I have though kept all of this information in mind.
The legal principles which will govern this judgment
[5]The paramountcy of each child’s welfare is the guiding principle underpinning this judgment. In this case as adoption is pursued, I must have regard to each child’s welfare throughout their life. An adoption decision is a lifelong decision and my welfare analysis must reflect the draconian impact adoption has on family life. I will approach my analysis having regard to all the circumstances of the case but with a focus on the extended welfare checklist found in s1(4) Adoption and Children Act 2002. That checklist differs from the standard checklist in particular by compelling the Court to have regard to the impact on a child of having their biological family life severed by the making of an adoption order.[6]Whilst this is not in dispute in any meaningful way, I remind myself that to make any public law order I must first find the legal threshold to have been crossed. As set out in s31 Children Act 1989 this requires a child to have suffered significant harm or be likely to suffer significant harm if an order is not made. Without evidence of significant harm, the state has no right to interfere in family life at all. Furthermore, the harm must be attributable to the care given to the child by the care giver. It cannot arise from extraneous circumstances outside the control of the carer, and a further fail safe is found in the need for this care to be shown to be care which falls outside of a band of reasonable care to be expected from such a carer.[7]It is well understood that the crossing of the s31 threshold is not by itself a basis for making a final public law order. The threshold is established in most cases on a date at around the commencement of proceedings and much may change between that date and the conclusion of proceedings. In all cases there will be hope for reflection and change where the same is required. Parents and other carers are given an opportunity to make their case through the proceedings which should last for around 6 months. They are expected to reflect on the concerns raised and whilst they are entitled to challenge the same, they nonetheless have a valuable opportunity to show either the concerns are not justified, or justified at the level set, or that if justified they are no longer a matter of concern due to change. If change is not completed at final hearing this will not mean the carer will fail. Rather, a Court will have regard also to the prospects of future change. In doing so the Court will seek to ascertain the confidence it can have that change will follow and will be careful to assess whether change will occur within the timescales of that child.[8]In legal terms the crossing of the threshold opens a door to the making of a public law order but this door may be firmly closed by the evidence then obtained. The focus in every case will be on the combination of the history and the evidence obtained in the course of the proceedings. This will typically involve both parenting and connected person assessments which sit at the centre of any decision making.[9]It is in this context that the Court considers the evidence gathered. In doing so it keeps in mind the search is not for perfect parenting but instead good enough parenting. The Court is expected to permit a range of parenting styles and in doing so accepts parenting which is inconsistent and may have elements capable of real criticism. Few, if any, parents are models of perfection and many, if not all, children will at times experience parenting which has some harmful impact. But it is not for the Court acting as an aspect of the State to interfere in an attempt to socially engineer a modelled form of parenting.[10]The Court in considering good enough parenting may place expectations on state agencies to provide appropriate support to scaffold the parenting which a parent can offer. A disabled parent will not lose their children due to disability. An agency such as a local authority is expected to be on hand to offer reasonable levels of support to keep families together. Of course at some point it may be the support is at such a high level that it is the authority rather than the parent who is effectively providing the care. In such circumstances the Court has to reflect on whether this is either maintainable or in fact in the welfare interests of the child.[11]The Court naturally places a particular focus on the evidence gathered during the course of the proceedings and will listen with care to the evidence of the key participants. In all cases the evidence of parents (and here a connected person) will require the most careful consideration.[12]Where the parties fall into factual dispute as to an event then the Court will have to decide whether it happened. This is fact-finding. It will be on the party making the allegation to prove it and they will do so by establishing it is more likely than not to have happened. The person facing the allegation has no duty to disprove it and whilst any counter case will be appropriately scrutinised the rejection of it will not alone cause the allegation to be proved. If the evidence shows the event was more likely than not then it will be proved and treated as a fact within the proceedings. If not proven, it will be disregarded.[13]The higher courts have reflected on the differences between long term foster care and adoption. I will return to those principles later when I turn to that subject. Equally they have considered the role of the Court in considering the prospects of an adoptive placement being found. Again, I will return to this below.[14]A public law order whether a care or supervision order is an interference in family life and has to be justified to be made. It must be a proportionate response to the circumstances found and must be reasonable and necessary. The combination of these factors means the Court should reflect when considering such interference on the lowest form of interference which will meet the needs of the case. This requirement reflects the right this family and these children have to respect for their private family rights.[15]A plan for adoption through the making of a placement order is a particularly stark form of interference. Indeed it the most extreme form of interference in family life that can be contemplated within the Family Court. It severs family life completely and is lifelong in its impact. Such a step requires a particularly high level of justification. This necessity is summed up by the phrase that adoption should only be ordered where ‘nothing else will do’.[16]In considering all of the above the Court is focused on the realistic option before the Court. In this case I am asked to consider placement with a plan for adoption, placement with The MGM (under any form of order), and long-term foster care. I keep in mind each child is individual and must ensure I do not approach the welfare needs of the children taken as a group only. I recognise, as do the family members, that the children’s individual needs are entwined with each other to the extent they have established and firm sibling bonds.[17]If I agree with the applicant, contrary to the wishes of the parents, then I can only make the placement order by first dispensing with their consent to the same. I can only do this if the welfare needs of the child require me to do so.[18]I should say I have received a statement of law. I have borne the contents in mind and may return to parts of that within this judgment. But I appreciate it is important that I simply do not adopt such a document and the foregoing section reflects my own analysis of the law. I do not consider there to be a material difference between my analysis and the provided document.
Key background required to understand the case
[19]Concerns with regards to these children appears to have first arisen in 2021 when the family were living in [another local authority area]. At that stage [C] was the only child of the parties and concerns were raised as to reported domestic incidents involving the parties. Over the next few years between 2021 and 2024 concerns escalated as first [D] and then [E] joined the family. In 2022 an anonymous referral raised concerns as to the parents offending, substance misuse and domestic violence. In 2023 The mother had broken up with the father and there was a police referral with concerns as to the state of the home. In January 2024 there was a further police referral with the mother alleging an assault from people associated with the father. At that time both parents were reported to be intoxicated.[20]By May 2024 The mother appears to have moved to the [a new local authority area]. Health professionals were expressing concerns around neglect of the children. The MGM was reported to have smoked cannabis on arrival at a home visit, [E] had a full leaking nappy and there were half empty wine bottles in the room. The mother declined support. In August 2024 police attended the property following an allegation The mother had assaulted the children, and in the following month there were reports that the mother was leaving the children unattended and further concerns around chastisement.[21]In December 2024 the family moved to the Applicant area. A member of the public expressed concerns as to marks on the children when seen in public. Police attended but there was no immediate safeguarding issue although the children had visible scarring. In January 2025 there was a child protection medical which concluded there had been neglectful parenting which permitted the children to hurt each other, poor oral hygiene and incomplete vaccinations. At that time [C] had not been in school and [E] had not been registered with a GP. Later health visitor appointments were not kept. In February 2025 the health visitor completed a visit and expressed significant concerns around neglect and safety in the home environment.[22]A strategy meeting was undertaken and a joint s47 investigation (police and children services) agreed. As part of this a police visit was undertaken to the property and the children were taken into care under police protection due to the circumstances in the home.[23]Proceedings were issued on 5 February 2025 and on 6 February 2025 the children were placed into the Applicant’s care. They were removed into foster care and the three children have remained placed together.[24]The case has proceeded before the Magistrates until recent reallocation to me.[25]The case management hearing was heard on 26 February 2025 and made provision for parenting assessments, a viability assessment of the MGM and various other directions including hair strand testing. Paternity testing was ordered with regard to [E]. This subsequently confirmed the father as her father.[26]The mother applied to discharge the interim care order and sought a reverse residential parenting assessment. On 10 March 2026 both applications were refused and a parenting assessment to be undertaken by the Maya Angelou Centre was directed for each parent. An IRH was fixed for July 2025.[27]The initial viability assessment of the MGM was negative. On 21 March 2025 a hair strand report (HST) indicated the mother had been consuming cannabis at a medium/low level in the preceding period. A subsequent report for the father evidenced the presence of cannabis and cocaine. Maya Angelou provided a negative assessment for the mother on 9 July 2025 based on(1) her parenting capacity being impacted by her own emotional and mental health needs;(2) Limited parenting insight and recurrent neglectful incidents, and;(3) Inconsistent prioritisation of the children’s needs. A similarly negative report was provided on the father on 10 July 2025. His attendance was inconsistent as was his engagement when attending. The negative factors focused on (1) Inconsistent engagement and lack of reliability in his parenting role; (2) Limited insight and inadequate practical skills, and; (3) Unresolved risk factors and emotional instability. A second HST for the mother in July 2025 confirmed low/medium results for cannabis.[28]A forensic psychological assessment had also been directed with respect to the mother. On 2 June 2025 this reported the mother to have no functional difficulty in meeting everyday tasks and no evidence of a personality disorder. The report identified traits of impulsivity, attachment insecurity and limited coping strategies.[29]In May 2025 the mother alleged a serious assault which involved the father. The father was subsequently arrested in relation to the allegation. Following the incident the mother went to hospital and discovered she was approximately four months pregnant with [F]. Both parents were intoxicated at the time of the incident.[30]At the IRH on 30 July 2025 the Court directed an addendum parenting assessment, a further family viability assessment and further HST’s. A repeat IRH was ordered in October 2025.[31]The addendum parenting assessment was provided but did not suggest a positive outcome. HST for the mother showed cannabis at a medium level and additionally positive results for cocaine and opiates. The separate family assessment did not provide a positive alternative.[32]The case came back on 7 October 2025 following the birth of [F]. The Court made an interim care order and he has remained in foster care separate from his siblings. The mother tested positive for drug use in blood tests around the time of the birth. The case was consolidated with the case for the older children and the IRH put back to February 2026.[33]On 20 February 2026 the case returned to Court. An assessment of the MGM had been undertaken and time for it to be filed was extended. The case was put back for a further IRH in May 2026 and it was noted the case might need to be reallocated due to the likely time estimate for the final hearing being beyond that of the Magistrates.[34]Given the substantial delay in the proceedings the case was brought to my attention acting as Designated Family Judge for West London. On 31 March 2026 I listed a IRH before me on 17 April 2026. At that hearing I fixed this final hearing and directed final HST of the parents and the MGM.[35]The HST evidence showed The MGM to have a high reading for cannabis and the father and the mother have positive results for cannabis (low/medium), cocaine (high) and opiates (low/medium). The connected person assessment of The MGM was negative.
Threshold
[36]Threshold is conceded and I find it established as set out within the draft document provided to me in advance of submissions. The document cites a home environment in such a state as to create a risk of physical and emotional harm to the children at the commencement of proceedings. I have a video of the attendance of the police at this time which led to the children being taken into police protection. Neglect is also established with regards to medical and dental neglect and of their basic supervision and education. [C] has never attended school despite being aged 5 ½ years.[37]In relation to [F] (born around 8 months into proceedings) there was very poor engagement with ante-natal care and multiple missed appointments.[38]In relation to the older children, reliance is placed on a domestic incident in May 2025 (within proceedings). This has been reworded but still sets out a violent incident in the course of which both parents were present intoxicated, the mother was subject to a violent assault involving a number of other people during which the father held her down. Despite all of this the mother did not support a prosecution and continued to visit the father even though he was on police bail leading to him being arrested.[39]Both parents use illicit drugs. The mother did during her pregnancy and [F] tested positive for opiates, cannabis and cocaine following his birth. The mother has continued to use drugs throughout the proceedings and has failed to engage (or engage appropriately) with support service whether around drugs, domestic abuse or parenting. The father has continued to use drugs during the proceedings.
The key parts of the evidence I will have to reach conclusions upon
[40]There are many matters within the evidence which are not in dispute. However, two parts stand out as requiring close consideration. These are(1) around the concerns expressed as to the MGM’s ability to care for the children, and(2) about the realistic prospects of adoption as a plan whether for all of some of the children having regard in particular to their sibling relationship. Whilst there are other matters that will be considered these features stand out and deserve a focused consideration.
The concerns relating to the MGM: My analysis and relevant conclusions
[41]Before considering this question, it is appropriate to also note positives that exist with regards to the MGM. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that she deeply loves each and every one of her grandchildren. My sense is that they are at the very centre of her life and she wants the very best for them. She cannot contemplate their loss and has shown commitment within these proceedings in offering an option for them where no other option within the family exists. Quite aside from the decision I reach she deserves real credit for this and the eternal thanks of the mother and the father. Her commitment to the children can be found in her active participation in these proceedings and her attendance at contact.[42]In considering her evidence I found her to hold a genuine belief she can offer a home for the children. Whilst I may disagree with her as to aspects of her evidence, I am confident any disagreement reflects her attempt to present what she can offer in the best possible light. I am also mindful that in certain regards being very close to some of the issues in the case she naturally has a subjective viewpoint shaped by her hopes and her own assessment of what is required in contrast to what an objective viewpoint finds.[43]In considering this part of the evidence I am naturally also focused on the connected person assessment undertaken by the ISW. I was very impressed by this witness. She gave clear and helpful evidence. She was not dogmatic and evidenced her views whenever required to do so. It was clear to me she had approached her task with real care. She made appropriate concessions but was unshaken as to her key conclusions. I have no reason to doubt her independence and no obvious reason to doubt the account she gave.[44]The key issues under the heading of concern with respect to the MGM are: i) Her home environment ii) Her physical health iii) Her drug use iv) Her support network v) Her emotional needs vi) Her understanding of the concerns in the case, the children’s needs and her ability to prioritise the needs of the children.[45]I will deal with each of these in turn. I particularly reflect on the evidence of the MGM, the ISW and the children’s guardian who has reached her own independent conclusions. Housing Conditions[46]The children were removed from a home environment which was wholly unacceptable. There is no challenge to that, and it forms part of the threshold as a feature which was causing and likely to cause the children significant harm. The MGM agrees she had been visiting that property and stayed over in the days prior to removal. She was questioned as to her view of the circumstances. Whilst she spoke of bringing a new hoover and a mop it was clear she felt the view taken as to the home was somewhat overstated. It is clear she took no obvious active steps to correct it. Undoubtedly her view of this environment will be shaped by her own home environment and her own sensitivity to an unacceptable environment.[47]The ISW gave particularly striking evidence in this regard. She spoke of visiting the MGM’s home and finding the kitchen so cluttered that she could not properly enter it and could not check the fridge for appropriate food (as it often done) as she simply could not access the fridge due to the conditions. She told me this was not an environment in which the kitchen could be used as an effective kitchen due to the clutter. She expressed equal reservations as to the rest of the property. I note this is a property where the mother and the children had regularly stayed. The ISW was struck by the fact this was a planned visit and yet the property was found in an unacceptable state.[48]This report was completed in March 2026 and the home visits were undertaken between September 2025 and February 2026. The report notes some improvement during this period but the conditions remained concerning. The relevant part of the report which was maintained in evidence reads: Prior to my first visit, [The MGM] was aware of my role and the purpose of my attendance in her home, she confirmed this to me by setting out her understanding that I was there to assess her ability to care for her grandchildren. Nevertheless, upon arrival, [The MGM’s] property was not in a condition that would be suitable for children to reside in or even visit. There were items stacked from floor to ceiling in the front room, the kitchen was barely accessible, and the bedroom and bathroom were not in a condition suitable for children, the home was both cluttered and dirty. I observed discarded rubbish covering the floor at the beginning of this assessment, the bath was out of action owing to clutter stacked up within the bath. I had an open and honest discussion with [the MGM] on my first visit, setting out my expectations for the home conditions and how they form part of my assessment, throughout the course of the assessment, there was some improvement by way of decluttering of the home, nevertheless, the conditions and cleanliness of the home remained of concern, there was thick grime on the kitchen surfaces, these remained covered with discarded items, whilst a walkway in the kitchen had been cleared, there remain a significant amount of clutter stacked in the kitchen which meant it was not freely accessible, the surfaces were not accessible.[49]The report also notes the property is 1-bedroom and would not be suitable to house 4 children. I have been told that when the mother visited with the children, [C] would sleep in the bed with the MGM whilst the mother and [D] slept on a sofa and [E] slept in her cot.[50]When questioned as to her account the ISW was unmoved and I found her evidence to be clear and credible. Indeed, whilst the MGM gave a sense of not entirely accepting the critique her focus was on suggesting she had now made changes. I was shown two short video extracts of the home. It was unclear the dating of the same but I understood it related to a period after the ISW visited. One showed panning around half of the kitchen whilst the other showed panning around the bedroom. I was asked to accept this showed a material change and/or a resolution of the issues raised.[51]I do bear in mind the limited acceptance by the ISW of change. I consider the video shows an improved status to that at the time of the completion of the assessment as I do not see circumstances quite as described at that time. This does evidence some effort has been taken to present the circumstances more favourably. I also have regard to what is said to be the cause of this state of affairs. The MGM references the passing of her partner (and father of her children) in 2021. The MGM described him as a hoarder and responsible for the cluttered nature of the property. Given the passage of time it is appropriate to ask why it is that state continued some 5 years later. The sense of the evidence was a level of emotional inability on the part of the MGM to part with these items which in some way continue to represent someone who she was very close to. It was very evident in both the written and live evidence that the MGM remained significantly impacted by the loss of her partner.[52]I have reflected on all of these points and retain three concerns. The first is as to the whether there has been material change to the state of the accommodation and secondly and more importantly as to the sustainability of any change. As to the first point I accept the observations of the applicant and guardian that the Court has only received a partial viewing of the property. It is noteworthy that whereas half of the kitchen is shown the other half is not (save to the extent there is some limited reflection from surfaces). It remains unclear as to why the video panning stopped when it did. As an example, the fridge was not captured by the video which showed two of the four walls of the kitchen. One is left wondering what the full kitchen looked like and whether items were moved or displaced elsewhere in the kitchen or property more generally. I accept what is shown is fundamentally acceptable albeit in relatively poor condition. I accept the bedroom is shown in an acceptable state but much of the house remains unseen.[53]The second concern is as to the timing of the change. The MGM has had a role in the proceedings since its start as a suggested connected person to be assessed. As early as February 2025 she was subject to an initial viability assessment. This was negative but later and despite this the applicant decided to fully assess her given the otherwise limited options for the children. The second assessment was carried out between September 2025 and March 2026 yet the MGM was unable to make significant changes as required. Now for the final hearing I have two partial videos. I retain a concern that this action is responsive to the proceedings rather than truly proactive. It concerns me the MGM was not able to identify the need for change earlier. This raises a real question as to her acknowledgment of a real need for change. I note her views as to the mother’s home which suggests she is overly tolerant of an unacceptable living environment for the children.[54]The third concern is sustainability of any change. As noted above the changes shown are late in proceedings and demonstrated to only a limited extent. In contrast the evidence suggests that state of affairs had existed for a significant period and is likely to have become an embedded state of affairs. In this context and having regard to other issues addressed below I have some real doubt as to the capacity of the MGM to make sufficient changes and sustain the same over the longer term and importantly the timescales for these still very young children.[55]Whilst I note the size of the property I do not consider this to be a feature that rules out the MGM. I accept all four children could not move into this property long term but I also have regard to(a) the fact the case asks me to consider anything from 1 to 4 children and(b) were the children to move in then there would be at least a likelihood of the potential to obtain larger accommodation due to these needs and out of the financial support that would flow from such placements. Health concerns[56]The MGM is [age under 60] years of age and has some very significant health concerns. In her initial viability assessment The MGM reported herself to be disabled and [various medical circumstances removed to avoid identification].[57]In the course of the hearing I have received a number of medical documents. The applicant relies on a medical report produced as part of the assessment. In the normal way information was obtained from the MGM’s GP and then forwarded to the applicant agency medical advisor for consideration. I have a report from July 2026.[58][Personal details removed to avoid identification]. The medical advisor noted significant health challenges, being registered as disabled with a limiting impact on childcare capacity. She is at high risk of further complications such as heart attack and stroke. Her BMI placed her at risk of significant morbidity. It was felt this would likely impact on her ability to maintain necessary physical mobility required for the care of very young children. Questions were raised as to the activities she was unable to achieve which would have led to her PIP assessment. It was noted the MGM had failed to attend an appointment [details removed to avoid identification].[59]The MGM challenged these conclusions and pointed to the GP document which informed the agency advisor. A significant part of this document is the MGM’s self-reported account of her situation but the later part of the report comes from the GP. I am asked to note the GP says the report is ‘accurate’ and that the GP answered ‘no’ when asked if there was anything in the MGM’s lifestyle/health/history that might impact on her ability to care for a child or put a child at risk. The MGM also relied on a medical document from an advanced practitioner from September 2025 which she felt gave a more positive account of her situation.[60]These medical issues caused concern for the ISW and other professionals as to the ability of the MGM to provide reliable and sustainable care for such young children over what would be the next 15+ years. A combination of her state of health and the risks associated with the same were felt to remove any confidence one could have as to sustainable good enough care.[61]The MGM was questioned in this regard and noted she was now on weight loss medication which was proving effective in reducing her weight albeit [she remains overweight]. She was clear she was mobile and would have no issues managing young active children. She denied being dependent on her mobility scooter. She told me she had been reducing her medication with less reliance on the anti-depressants as she was coming to terms with the loss of her partner. She had also reduced her use of pain medication for her chronic pain and explained this decision was related to the negative effects of the same.[62]The ISW told me the account given to her by the MGM was of dependence on the scooter and that when it was unavailable the MGM had not been able to leave her home for a period. The questioning probed the MGM’s failure to liaise with her GP before making decisions with regard to her medication and her failure to take up counselling or therapy. The professionals considered there was a likelihood of a deeper-seated issue which had led to the MGM’s situation. The evidence tells me there were issues in the MGM’s upbringing around parental substance abuse and even in the relationship with her partner there were real issues including a time when he [removed to avoid identification].[63]I can see the MGM is taking steps to address her weight. This is a feature which will have an obvious contribution to the morbidity risk she faces. It likely contributed to [removed] medical issues she has faced and has a limiting impact on her as shown by the PIP and the scooter. But she is at the start of a journey and this may not be entirely straightforward given she tells me she has faced weight issues all her life and there are likely to be a range of embedded emotions and lifestyle patterns which may be difficult to shift but are required to make progress.[64]I have borne in mind all the contact records to which I have been taken, and whilst these show the MGM to be actively involved in contact they understandably do not detail the nature of her active engagement. There is no reason why they would do so but this means I cannot find in those records the evidence the MGM would suggest of good enough mobility. I accept the evidence of the ISW as to what she was told about the scooter and equally the reality of the PIP determination which must speak of an inability to undertake everyday tasks as that is the basis on which it is paid.[65]I am concerned as to the intersection of her medication and drug usage (see below). Her drug usage was not declared and it is concerning on her own case that she has during the course of proceedings (in which drug use is an obvious issue) substituted prescribed painkillers with non-prescribed unlawful drugs.[66]It is very difficult to reach a conclusion other than that her medical state is a feature which will make childcare much harder and that as matters currently stand there must be a real risk that her health will impact on her ability to provide sustainable care for the children. This is quite aside from the simple issue of mobility and how this will limit her likely engagement in the range of matters expected of a carer for multiple young children. I accept the evidence from contact but it is noted this was for a period of 1 hour at a time. Drug use[67]Contrary to her self-reporting it is now clear the MGM has been consuming cannabis although the circumstances of the same are in dispute. She now accepts substituting painkillers with cannabis gummies obtained from a neighbour for a period which appears at least to have covered the time when she was being assessed. I found her evidence as to the timeline of the same confused but I understood she claims to have ceased usage in about February 2026 then moving onto over-the-counter gummies which contain CBD but not the elements of cannabis which are associated with the psychotic effects. I understand her to claim this is now her settled position and that her pain is being managed by use of this CBD gummy and the residual painkillers.[68]As I read the evidence the MGM did not admit to such usage until a hair strand test result was obtained in June 2026. This shows cannabis at a high level throughout the period of the testing (December 2025 until June 2026) with a peak in the middle of this period.[69]This assessment is also complicated by existing evidence from the ISW that she smelt cannabis when visiting the MGM’s home and from contact sessions where a supervisor also smelt cannabis. The MGM blames the home smell on a neighbour’s usage and the smell in contact coming from a recently purchased second hand and wet coat.[70]The MGM denied any cannabis ingestion by smoking and to an extent it does not matter as to the form of ingestion. The relevance of use relates to any impact on the MGM of the same and the consequent likely impact on the care she might provide to the children were she to continue using at such levels.[71]The evidence clearly shows cannabis use and at a level that is likely to have had a material impact on the MGM. The evidence shows the MGM has ingested the psychoactive component of cannabis at a high level throughout the period of testing. I consider it likely there is some relationship between this and the conditions in the home environment and also the MGM’s ability to increase her personal activity levels to address her health concerns. The levels found are likely to be consistent with an individual who will be experiencing the ‘stoned’ impact typically sought by users.[72]On balance I consider it likely the MGM has supplemented her admitted gummy usage with smoked cannabis. Plainly she has managed to access an illicit cannabis supply and it is not much of a leap to consider she could have accessed cannabis in a plant form for smoking from the same source. I accept the evidence of the ISW and it is difficult to understand how the smell seeped from the adjoining hallway when it was not in fact smelt there prior to accessing the property. Further the account of cannabis scent being smelt from a coat due to being wet and which retained a cannabis odour after being dry cleaned when taken with all the other evidence appears implausible.[73]It is not for me to determine the motivation for such use. On balance I do not reject the notion of it being used as a substitute for painkillers. That in its own right raises a concern as far it suggests an uninformed approach to self-medication. However, this does not change the fact that the MGM has been throughout this period using cannabis at a high level. It may be felt somewhat implausible that this was the entirety of her usage given in the first month of use the results are already at a high level.[74]It is a concern that the MGM cannot show a period, let alone a sustained period of abstinence. Whilst she tells me she has now removed usage of such gummies I am bound to observe it as unlikely that over the counter CBD would have the same numbing effect on her chronic pain as the high resulting from illicit usage. Given she does not claim to have returned to painkillers at the previous level and given there is no reason to assume her chronic pain will have simply ended at the same time as she stopped using illicit gummies I retain a real doubt that she has in fact stopped her usage.[75]Such use is highly problematic when one has regard to the home life previously experienced by the children and the need for a carer who is emotionally and physically available at all times. Taken in conjunction with the noted physical challenges this raises a real concern. Support network[76]Reflecting on the challenges set out above it would appear clear the MGM would be a carer who would benefit, indeed require some level of support to meet the needs of the children. In many cases one would be considering a parent with difficulties who might then turn to their own mother, parents or siblings to offer respite and regular practical and emotional support.[77]At the time of the assessment the evidence of a supportive network was limited causing concern to the ISW and the professionals. Whilst the MGM was able to identify a level of social network it was far from clear this would be support which was on hand as and when required.[78]A sad feature of this case is that the MGM cannot turn for support to either parent, The father’s family or her other daughter. In her live evidence she identified two close friends who were there to help her. One of these had not been available at the time of the assessment due to her own commitments at that time but was now said to be available. In addition reference was made to a group of friends living some distance away in [area X]. The MGM explained that one of her close friends had been involved in the recent clear up at the property and both of the close friends were willing to provide her with help.[79]As with other aspects of the evidence (the house being decluttered, drug usage stopping) this was new evidence developing at the time of the hearing. Neither friend gave evidence and only one has been spoken to by professionals to gauge what they might offer. Both pre-date these proceedings and so appear to have little or no influence in encouraging the MGM to change previously.[80]I am sure each of the friends will offer help to the MGM but I have found it hard to view as being anything akin to the form of assistance that I recognise in §76 above. The sense is of well-intentioned individuals but there is an absence of reliable evidence to pinpoint a high level of support that will be required in this case. Her own emotional needs[81]I have noted the evidence that the MGM receives a PIP resulting in part from her depression. This indicates a level of impact at a significant level such as to impair everyday capacity. I do not have evidence on which I can base an understanding of the source of this depression but I accept the death of her partner will have been a major contributor to her current low mood. I am sure having to cope with two children in care proceedings will have exacerbated this difficulty. The professionals question whether the challenge is more deep-seated and draw attention to a troubled history both in childhood and adulthood. The MGM dismisses this suggestion. However, whatever the cause, it is clear she has been significantly impacted by the depression. At various points during her evidence and when listening to evidence she was unable to contain her emotions. This is not intended to be a criticism of her in any way. She has had much to cope with and it is understandable matters have become too much for her.[82]The impact of all of this is likely to be reflected in her levels of activity with a consequent impact on other matters of concern such as the state of the home and ensuring her own health needs are met. As should be clear by now many of the concerns relating to the MGM cannot be simply compartmentalised but intersect causing ripples with wider and greater impact. Many of the concerns including health and drug use have highly negative relationships and introducing into that arena issues as to mental health only complicates the situation and makes recovery harder.[83]The MGM told me she feels her sense of bereavement is easing. That would make sense and one would hope that is the case. It has been a significant weight on an already vulnerable adult. But the MGM remains vulnerable and only time will tell whether the introduction of the demands of 1-4 children into her life full-time would lessen or increase those difficulties. Her understanding of the concerns in the case, the children’s needs and her ability to prioritise the needs of the children[84]I have captured some of this above. Concern is expressed as to the MGM’s apparent lack of insight or action in addressing the state of the children’s home or [C]’s lack of education despite being present in the children’s lives on a very active basis. Equally questions are raised as to the accepted neglect of the children which must have been occurring within her sight.[85]The applicant questions whether the MGM has a proper appreciation of these concerns and if not whether placing the children with her would likely lead to matters repeating in some manner or other.[86]There is also expressed concern as to her ability to prioritise the children’s needs over those of her own daughter. It is clear the MGM is a mother who has a lot of love for both her daughters and there is the danger that she will be unable to meet the challenge of consistently placing the children’s needs over those of the mother.[87]On balance I am less moved by this concern. Having seen both the parents and the MGM I consider she would likely do her upmost to avoid the children coming to harm and would do her best to respect the boundaries that might be set around contact. The difficulty would be to whom she would turn were she to struggle. It is clear to me she does not entirely accept the justified critique of her daughter’s care, and I sense a real possibility for boundaries to be blurred over time. Having listened to her evidence and read her early position with respect to the instigation of proceedings it is clear she accepts a level of concern as to what the children experienced but I cannot overlook the fact she seemed to accept this when it was occurring in front of her. It appears to me she was passive when one would have expected a more active response to what was happening. Summary[88]I am saddened to conclude that whilst each of these issues taken alone are concerning, taken together they raise a formidable obstacle to the MGM providing reliable and consistent care for the children within their timescales. Further it is not obvious to me that this constellation of factors is likely to be impactful only on the younger children in the group. Whilst I accept their needs will be greater and they are more vulnerable I consider [C] is no less likely to be negatively impacted by these features. It seems obvious to me that the challenges the MGM would face would be increased the more children she was required to care for.
The realistic prospects of adoption
[89]I have received family finding advice. I also draw on the court’s experience of issues of this sort. However, as I made clear in the hearing such advice and experience are to an extent case specific and it is questionable to what extent significant reliance can be placed on generic statistics.[90]There are some points which can be accepted. It is harder to place a larger sibling group than a smaller sibling group. It is harder to place an older child than a younger child. It is harder to place a child with significant needs than to place a child with no identified needs.[91]In this case the applicant would want, if possible, to place all 4 children together. One might consider this an optimistic ambition. The family finder provides advice based on the system accessible to her (from experience I appreciate this is not an exhaustive list of all adoptive national options although it is a significant part of the adoption landscape). She advised at this time there are no adopters who are open to taking 4 children and she advises a likely search would take two years or more. Turning to the option of placing [F] alone and the older three children together, the advice is again that there are no current adopters open to three children and that this would likely take 1 year plus to find a placement. In the case of [F], the situation would be different with multiple adopters and a likely placement within 3 months. A third option of the older two children and younger two children together would be more viable and likely within 12 months for each pairing. A final option of the three younger children and [C] alone would likely take in excess of a year for the larger group and up to a year for [C] alone.[92]It is very important to keep in mind this assessment is dynamic with constant churn as adopters have children placed with them and leave the system whilst other enter. It also has to be borne in mind that these assessments are undertaken on an anonymous basis and the potential for interest in placement can change when a clearer understanding of the relevant children is known. However, it is also right to reflect on actual experience and the family finder confirms that her agency has never placed a 4-child sibling group and are currently in the process of placing their first 3-child sibling group.[93]This evidence leads those opposing the adoption route to argue it is simply not realistic and will act to delay the inevitable need for an alternative long-term placement if all children were to be kept together. The argument further notes the real potential that the search will shift from an intention to place together to a search for paired placements or placement of a child alone. Those opposing adoption raise the importance and strength of the sibling group and urge me to consider this option with open eyes recognising that in all reality if I make the order then the children will come to be separated and it is this reality that really needs to be compared against the other realistic alternatives. If I fail to do this it is suggested I will be carrying out a false comparison. Further to all of this, it is submitted there is a low prospect of placing [C] given her age with her siblings or at all. Again, it is submitted, this must be brought into the analysis for it to be a fair balancing assessment.[94]Whilst all the arguments from the family members argue for the children to be raised together there is a level of recognition that [F] may end up placed separately whether pursuant to adoption or long-term foster care and it is recognised he shares a very different form of relation to his siblings as the rest do to each other.[95]I acknowledge these concerns. Whilst there is by definition a speculative element to this forecasting it would be unrealistic to ignore experience and the likely prospects of each placement option.[96]For my part I struggle to entertain an outcome under which the applicant continues to pursue a single placement beyond two years. By this point the passage of time and [C]’s increasing age would likely make any alternative option very difficult to achieve. It would amount to permitting the search for a perfect outcome to remove the chance of a realistic outcome. My strong sense is that this option would have to give way with to a placement option that arose permitting placement of the older three together. Were this to be identified, then I consider the applicant would then likely take that option choosing to have a separate placement for [F] given the respective sibling bonds.[97]I consider it therefore likely on the evidence I have that the best that is likely to be achieved is a placement of the older three together and [F] separate to the other three.[98]I also agree placement of the older three together will face challenges, but I am unable to say it will fail. Whilst it may be less likely than not, I do not consider it is my role to determine this question by reference to the balance of probabilities but rather as to whether there is a realistic possibility of such a placement.[99]In carrying out this analysis I bear in mind the authority of Re D-S (A Child: Adoption or Fostering) [2024] EWCA Civ 948 in which Peter Jackson LJ made the important point that when a Court is considering the choice between adoption and foster care, the Court’s primary task is to take a decision as to whether one or the other is right for the child as a matter of principle. In order to do this, there will not ordinarily need to be evidence as to placement availability. This applies equally here. This does not mean I should not reflect on the challenges which a placement search may bring or that I cannot find circumstances in which the proposed search can be viewed as having insufficient prospect of success to tip the balance against such a search. However, any such analysis will always be impacted by an awareness that the Court is engaged in a relatively high level of speculation.[100]A further complexity of this analysis is in considering the balance between each child’s need for a level of permanence (a question I will turn to in greater detail below) and the same child’s need for maintenance of a sibling relationship. In the case of [F] who was born into these proceedings and has a far more limited relationship with his siblings it is easier to contemplate his need for permanence outweighing a counterbalance of a need for an enduring sibling relationship. However, for the older three children the bonds are stronger and the relationships deeper. Whilst each of these children have an equal demand for permanence this is balanced by the sibling relationship. Plainly an outcome which gives both permanence and maintains the relationship without disruption would be the ideal. But what am I to do if both cannot be achieved? Which of the needs should give way and does this vary between the child considered. In the case of [E] for example, now aged just 2 years of age, would it be preferable for her to obtain permanence even if this were to sever her sibling relationship or would it be better to preserve the relationship even were this to mean she would then live her life in foster care. [D] is not yet 4 and the situation is little different for him. This raises a real dilemma for the Court and is one to which I will return. Summary[101]I accept the challenge to placement raised by the family as to the problems that might be faced and the potential for sibling separation. I accept the children have meaningful relationships and that a severance of the same would come with obvious harmful and negative consequences. I recognise the position may be different for [F]. The positioning of [C] in the older sibling group is a particularly challenging aspect of the dilemma given her strong relationship with her younger siblings ([D] and [E]) and the impact of those relationships being severed on all of the children. Yet the alternative worry may be that in preserving this aspect of the children’s lives I might be sanctioning an outcome under which the children have a very uncertain future so far as permanence is concerned.
Other aspects of the evidence of note
[102]The section above focuses on the key live evidence placed before me. I will now summarise other evidence of relevance to my decision making.[103]The ISW made clear the MGM worked with her co-operatively throughout the assessment. She did not agree the assessment was undermined by a failure to view the MGM with the children in the community rather than the contact centre. She found no issues of concern in the contact notes and the MGM was seen by her to be engaging but was for the most part seated. She agreed there had been some progress with the property but it was still unacceptable. The conditions were alarming and the MGM had understood the purpose of the visit. Whilst she appreciated the linkage to the deceased partner this was many years previous and she had additional concerns about the MGM meeting her own needs let alone those of the children. She was concerned that in the period since the MGM had taken no steps to address the emotional impact of the loss. She felt there was likely unaddressed trauma which predated the death and whilst the medication is providing a level of stability it is not addressing the root cause. She felt what we saw was the tip of the iceberg. She could not agree the MGM was physically fit whilst being dependent on a mobility scooter. As to one of the close friends it was noted she had her own child with additional needs. The second friend was not proposed at the date of the assessment and the friends in Essex had not been told what was going on with the grandchildren.[104]As to risks: whilst the MGM would prioritise the children she felt she lacked insight into the impact on the children of living in a neglectful environment and struggled to understand the risks posed by their mother. She accepted the MGM should be entitled to the same training as a foster carer would receive around trauma informed parenting but commented that the foster carer would not have the ancillary challenges the MGM would face. She agreed [C] had different needs to the younger children but this did not diminish some basic needs which she felt the MGM could not consistently meet. She did not believe either a placement under a supervision or care order would address the concerns nor did she consider an adjournment would be in the best interests of the children.[105]I will say little about the parenting assessor evidence given the concessions made by the parents. He acknowledged the mother has strengths in relation to her clear love for her children, there was an emerging ability to reflect on her part and there were positive contact notes.[106]The Social Work Team Manager brought together the assessment evidence and shared the judgment of the ISW. The social worker commented on a contact session where the father without warning (and having not had contact with the children for some time – since his birth he has never met [F]) turned up as the children were leaving contact with their mother. This breached the understanding that there needed to be a risk assessment prior to contact starting. She also updated the court as to contact sessions missed by the mother. She recognised the positives associated with the MGM and the significance of the care plan but stressed the need for secure permanence for all the children. She felt it likely the MGM would attend courses if offered and would likely engage and take on guidance. Her concern was as to sustainability of any change, and she noted the failure to get to grips with the home environment notwithstanding the MGM knew the visit was planned. She disagreed with the suggestion that viewing time with the children only in a contact centre in any way invalidated the conclusions of the assessment and noted if matters had been positive then there would have been a natural progression. She disagreed with the suggestion that the issue of support was now resolved. She considered the MGM would need significant support if she were to care for 4 children.[107]She was asked to consider the various options that might arise with different children being placed with the MGM. She recognised the differing needs of each child but felt there was a common base level of need which all had and separate and individual needs personal to each child. She was not willing to adopt a suggestion that [C] would be fundamentally easier to care for. She spoke of the parallel plans held by the applicant. The first plan was for all to be placed together followed by [F] alone and the other three together albeit this would be subject to regular review. The plan is for placements which will permit sibling contact and family time. She disagreed with the suggestion [C] was not adoptable and spoke of her own recent experience of a placement group of three with a child older than [C] as part of that group. She agreed [C] ending up on her own would be negative for her. She could not agree to a further period of delay and adjournment to test out placement with the MGM. She was clear the MGM would likely not pass the fostering panel for the purposes of placement with family regulations and as such the children could not be placed with her under a care order – although this would be subject to a successful appeal of the decision. She told me the older children’s placement can keep them until placed and even if this takes two years but will not be a long-term placement due to the age of the carers and their own commitments. There is no time frame for [F]’s placement although it is not a long-term placement. She did not agree long term foster care was a better outcome for the children. She was taken through the guardian’s concerns as to placement with the MGM and agreed with each. She did agree the applicant needed to reflect on the speed of contact reduction were their plans approved.[108]The mother made clear she wanted her children to remain together, preferably with the MGM but if not in long-term foster care. If there had to be a separation, then [F] should be placed alone as he had no bond with the others whereas [C] and [D] are inseparable. If there were to be an adoption then she would like as much family time as possible. If the children were to be with the MGM then she would respect all boundaries set. She told me she had just commenced engagement with a drug support team. She explained she had not told her mother about the developing issues but agreed her mother was her only support. She didn’t agree with the ISW’s assessment of her mother’s home and sought to explain why it was that [C] had not entered education and the children had not been registered with a GP/received vaccinations. She claimed her mother was unaware of what was happening but also said they saw each other three times a week at each other’s homes. She agreed her mother has been at her home over the days prior to the children’s removal and had no issues with either the state of the home or the children.[109]She explained how her father’s death had also impacted her and how her mental health had deteriorated following the removal of the children. She has struggled to accept she has failed the children. She associated her current drug usage (cannabis/cocaine and opiates) with the removal of the children although appeared to accept previous usage. She told me that the father turning up at contact had been a surprise to her and she had only seen him when she was leaving the centre. She described the assault she had suffered which is set out within the threshold. It was only when she was in hospital following the assault that a blood test was done and she discovered she was pregnant with [F]. She claimed the father’s presence at [F]’s home birth was not of her making but due to an on-hand friend calling him. She talked about a new relationship but then explained it had in fact ended. She explained her lack of recent meetings with the social worker and the absence of a final statement as being due to having lost her phone.[110]My impression of the mother was of a parent who loves her children but has lost control of her life. She seemed to me articulate and intelligent. Before me she showed insight and penned an emotional letter setting out her position which was reasoned and placed blame on herself. Whilst there are aspects of her evidence which I do not accept, I nonetheless give her credit for making the difficult but realistic decision to accept she cannot care for the children within their timescales. She understandably struggled to consider different options for the children but I felt was realistic in her approach to [F].[111]The father failed to attend Court on the day he was due to give evidence (he had attended on previous days) and I was about to proceed to my next witness when I was told he was due to arrive – this was late in the afternoon. I waited and heard his evidence. I have some doubt as to whether he was fully sober (drink or drugs) as he gave evidence in a somewhat erratic manner and slurred his words. The MGM later confirmed to me that this presentation was not his normal (sober) presentation. His evidence was short.[112]He told me he wanted contact to resume and would meet with the social work team. He would have supported placement with the mother but in default supported the MGM telling me they could ‘all help out together’. He denied being under the influence of drugs not having used for several weeks. He gave an account of drug use which did not entirely fit with that given by the mother and an account of the unplanned contact which also did not fit. He told me when he arrived at the centre he saw the mother in the centre and she smiled at him. He denied assaulting the mother but had held her down and shouted at her. At the commencement of the hearing I was told a drug test result was due for the father. It arrived in his absence and showed a positive reading for cannabis/cocaine and opiates. The father was due in Court the next day for sentencing on a commercial burglary. He avoided a prison sentence attending Court on the final day of the hearing.[113]I have summarised a significant part of the MGM’s evidence in a previous section. She explained how she would look to move if the children were placed with her and could house them temporarily where she was whilst this was progressed. She was not dependent on her scooter and had not taken wider pictures of the property as she assumed the ISW would share the pictures she was assumed to have taken. She accepted her property was a work in progress but felt some of the concerns were exaggerated. She spoke of her support as noted above. She was now getting on top of the clutter with the support of her friend. She expressed a more positive attitude to her health. She was losing weight on her weight-loss drug and was reducing her medication. She denied any childhood related trauma. She maintained her case as to cannabis smoking. She accepted she had regularly visited her daughter’s home and was aware of schooling issues. She felt the mother was coping but she now knows this was superficial. She saw no issues with the children’s presentation. She was saddened by the changes in the mother who had previously provided her with support. She took an equal view with regards to the father and agreed drugs were inconsistent with the children’s needs. She would prioritise their needs over those of their parents.[114]She explained she had been on painkillers for chronic pain. This was two types of pain medication which left her drowsy and feeling sick and which left her unable to do things. She talked to friends and had regard to the fact her partner had gone from morphine to paracetamol when sick by instead using gummies. She did not speak to her GP about this as she knew they were not legal. She did not agree her health conditions were as serious as suggested.[115]She had not thought it right to have removed the children when it happened and felt it would have been more appropriate for the applicant to work with the mother. She now has more insight but felt she could have done more if she had been told what was happening. She had not made changes to her house as she was only being assessed for the children. She accepted she would need to manage the mother if the children were with her but considered she could set boundaries and disputed being manipulated by the mother.[116]The guardian was my final witness. She has produced a comprehensive final analysis in which she independently reviews the concerns around the MGM’s care and reaches a conclusion that the MGM cannot meet the welfare needs of any of the children (individually or collectively). She stood by this conclusion having heard all the evidence. She agreed the MGM had good intentions and that certain supports could be put in place to shore up her care but felt these would not be sufficient on the facts of the case. She could not accept long term foster care as an alternative to adoption as each of the children demanded permanency. In her judgment adoption was the best and only option for the children. She accepted there needed to be an element of flexibility around the family finding process and accepted there was an incredibly careful balancing exercise to be undertaken as any search proceeded. But she felt all the professionals involved with the family were very familiar with the specific dynamics of the children and were best placed to judge this. She considered the applicant had an appropriate approach to ongoing contact issues post placement. The question of ongoing direct contact between children and family would need to be seen in the light of the options available for the children but also in the light of where the parents were at that time on their journey towards removing drugs and also as where the MGM was with respect to her own health.[117]She accepted the MGM had good intentions and that support could be offered. She agreed an adjournment would give a greater understanding of the circumstances but there are risks associated with such a plan and any placement followed by deterioration would be catastrophic for the children. She judged this option was not viable. As to changes in the home, she felt the issue of neglect was at the heart of the case from its commencement and that notwithstanding the time available change has not been shown to have been imbedded. She felt the limited disputes on the medical evidence were not significant gaps. As to the proposed support this is new information late in the proceedings and it is a shame this was not supplied to the ISW, but each of these aspects are part of the broader picture of concern. She agreed there would be a significant impact of the children being separated from their family and was aware of the risks relating to [C]. This might need to be revisited but is not such a factor at this time as to justify a change in plan. She agreed separating the older 3 children would be devastating and accepted the challenges of the plan for placement of all 4 children together. She agreed there could be room for consideration of more imaginative forms of indirect contact were adoption to be pursued so long as this did not limit the search.
Welfare Analysis
[118]I remind myself I am engaged with the extended welfare checklist and that the welfare I consider is individual to each child and considered on a life-long basis. The factors set out have no hierarchy of importance. The child’s ascertainable wishes and feelings regarding the decision (considered in the light of the child’s age and understanding)[119]It is clear the children, and particularly [C] and [D], have an established relationship with their family members including the MGM. From this one might deduce a level of wishes and feelings supportive of the same continuing. But such a consideration has to be treated with care as wishes and feelings are to be considered in the light of the child’s age and understanding. In the case of [F] no meaningful weight can be placed on this factor given his still tender age. But even for [E] and [D] the instinctive recognition of a likely wish for continuance must bear in mind their inability to properly consider the full consequences that might flow from each option. In my assessment I consider this is a feature which is best captured through other elements of the checklist. The child’s particular needs[120]Each of these children have a need for a settled and permanent home in which their welfare is paramount and the overriding consideration of their carer is to meet these needs. This need includes stable and consistent care and a predictable and consistently available care giver. I consider this is relevant for each of the children but increases in significance as one travels down the age line of the children.[121]It is difficult to overstate the impact on the children were the care they receive to be episodic and unpredictable or were it to be subject to regular disruption. Given their history to date they will likely to be sensitive to such risks and I consider the presence of such circumstances to be damaging at an emotional level with consequence for both physical and educational needs.[122]This need places a particular emphasis on assessing each option through the prism of the permanence it can provide and the prospects of avoiding disruption were such an option chosen. I acknowledge and agree the evidence of the guardian as to the likely catastrophic impact of a future placement breakdown.[123]Set against this is a need which has the potential to come into conflict with permanence. I accept the three oldest children also have an emotional need flowing from their established sibling relationship. I distinguish [F] in this regard having regard to his age and his distinct family history. I note the evidence of the mother as to the bond between [D] and [C] and contrast this with what might otherwise be a presumed close association between [D] and [E] reflecting on their comparatively close ages. But however one approaches this question there is an undeniable bond which will have likely helped the children through the challenges of the last 18 months or so and which will likely have grown in relevance as a result.[124]These two points raise a potential conflict of respective needs. In my assessment [E] has a plain need for permanency but also shares a need based around the sibling bond. The Court, in carrying out its balancing exercise, has to reach a conclusion applying a holistic analysis to this question and reflecting on the range of other features.[125]Associated with this are emotional needs flowing from wider family relationships with the mother, The father and the MGM. On the evidence it appears the bond with the MGM has at least current equivalent value for the children. But again, to the extent this conflicts with other checklist factors an appropriate and proportionate balance will need to be drawn.[126]The children have a need for an answer now. They have been kept in proceedings for longer than should have been the case. Any further delay will need to come with a high level of confidence for it to justify further delay before reaching a conclusion.[127]The children have been neglected and this has plainly had a significant impact upon them. The Court will not want to sanction an outcome which may cause this to be repeated. The likely effect on the child (throughout his life) of having ceased to be a member of the original family and become an adopted person,[128]For each of the children the effect is likely to be significant. I am being asked to consider a placement outcome which may include family time and sibling contact (dependent on the placement permutation) but this cannot be guaranteed, and in any event would likely be set at a level far below that currently enjoyed. [C], [D] and possibly [E] have a firm understanding of their family members and a significant reduction or cessation of this relationship will appear confounding in the first instance. They have already suffered the loss of the family life they previously experienced and a further change of this magnitude will have real negative impact.[129]Quite what they would make of this and how it would impact them both in the immediacy and also over the longer term is a matter of speculation but one cannot avoid the potential for a long-term impact that might be found in impacted mental health and more. I recognise the potential for this to be ameliorated to an extent by the provision of high quality and loving care from an adoptive family but at some point in time the reality of the loss of biological family will hit and the consequences will need to be managed. If this is poorly managed or occurs outside of a contained situation then the impact may be very serious.[130]The planning in this case includes placement of the older three children together. Again it is difficult to determine the way in which each child’s differential response to severance will play out and how it may touch upon the other children. There is the potential for an older child to become dysregulated and the younger children may indirectly experience this which may in turn undermine their own confidence and the strength of their foundations in a new placement. The child’s age, sex, background and any of the child’s characteristics which the court or agency considers relevant[131]I have noted the respective age of each child and the impact this has on my assessment pointing to the difference this may make for [F] and to an extent [E] and [D] in a manner different to [C]. This judgment outlines their background experience and I do not lose sight of the significant proportion of their lives that each child has lived in care. I have also reflected on their sibling and broader family relationships. Any harm (within the meaning of the Children Act 1989) which the child has suffered or is at risk of suffering[132]I have regard to the threshold document which highlights the key risk factors underpinning this case. The harm experienced by each of the older children is broad ranging in the form of neglect to their basic care and in the case of [C] in respect of her education. This neglect had the potential to have life-long impact. It is complicated by the parental drug use which leaves each parent with a lowered focus on and prioritisation of the children’s needs. This is likely to feed the continuation of neglect and presents parents who are emotionally unavailable. In the case of [F], he was born into proceedings and impacted by the drugs his mother consumed through his ante-natal period. He has not seen his father since his birth due to his father’s inability to prioritise [F]’s needs over his own. At the date of final hearing it is difficult to identify when significant change will occur in this regard. Some of this has been militated by the love still given to the children but this will have left them confused and in a state of loss trying to make sense of the dislocation in their lives.[133]The risks in this case are not static and to be viewed as part of the children’s history. They are dynamic and remain an ongoing risk at this time. Despite nearly 18 months of litigation matters have not improved, indeed in some marked regards (see drug use) they have deteriorated.[134]The children simply cannot afford a return to an environment in which these risks are present or likely to return. To contemplate return with a meaningful prospect of them being removed again is simply unconscionable. The relationship which the child has with relatives, and with any other person in relation to whom the court or agency considers the relationship to be relevant, including:(i) the likelihood of any such relationship continuing and the value to the child of its doing so;(ii) the ability and willingness of any of the child’s relatives, or of any such person, to provide the child with a secure environment in which the child can develop, and otherwise to meet the child’s needs;(iii) the wishes and feelings of any of the child’s relatives, or of any such person, regarding the child[135]The children have a continuing and established relationship with the mother and the MGM. The relationship with the father has been unreliable and [F] enjoys no relationship with his father. If I were to make an order permitting the relationship to continue then I am in no doubt The mother and the MGM would commit to it and do their best to attend. I have doubts concerning the father as a result of the challenges which he faces and has shown a current inability to address. I have less concern as to the mother but nonetheless consider that relationship may be impacted from time to time by her own emotional availability. I consider the MGM would be fully committed subject to her own health needs. The children gain value from their contact and would continue to do so although this would come at a price were this to compromise permanency. I have no doubt as to the wishes of each family member and I recognise these feelings are genuinely held whether or not I reach the same conclusion.[136]The issue as to ability and willingness to provide a secure home environment is central to this judgment. Both the mother and the father sensibly accept they are not positioned to do this. I know each would want to have the opportunity to demonstrate change and for this to be reviewed over time. But I consider the right answer really must be determined now. If the right answer permits review then that is a bonus, but I do not consider I could or should opt for a sub-optimal outcome to enable this potential when the prospects of change are at this time so speculative.[137]The focus of this judgment has been on the MGM and her ability and willingness to meet this need. There is no doubt she has shown willingness in this regard. The question for me is as to her ability to do so either now or within the children’s timescales. It is the key question the answer to which I return below.
Balancing the options
[138]I will consider each of adoption, placement with the MGM and long-term foster care. Foster care under a final care order[139]A line of authorities explains the very significant distinction between adoption and foster care when considering what is likely to be best for a child. The central problem with foster care for a younger child is that it simply is not permanent in form and is at risk of breakdown and disruption. The emotional connection between a foster carer and adopter respectively and a child in their care is on a fundamentally different scale and the commitment arising is of a different nature. Foster care leaves a child with statutory parent and subject to a range of requirements which impact on the child’s lived experience and which send a message as to the vulnerability of the placement. On any basis foster care unlike adoption does not make the child a legal member of the family unit, creates nothing like the commitment or responsibility that flows from adoption and as such is of a secondary quality. None of this is intended to diminish the recognition of the hard work and indeed love shown by foster carers towards children in their care but this care is surrounded by the role of a statutory parent which seeps into all parts of the relationship.[140]Yet there are obvious positives that need to be identified and recognised. One would expect such a placement to be safe and provide care which is not neglectful. Furthermore, it has a much greater potential for ongoing family and sibling contact. Finally, it has the potential for allowing review and ultimately discharge and rehabilitation of family life.[141]But in recognising the potential for discharge one must also recognise the potential for such an application to discriminate between the children. Within this hearing I have been asked to consider whether [C] alone might be cared for by the MGM. I appreciate this is not an outcome sought but a secondary position but it reflects a potential which cannot be overlooked. There is no reason to believe that position will change nor that the MGM or one of the parents may apply for discharge recognising an ability to care for [C] (or any of the children) alone or as part of a smaller group. This means there is a potential for the positive of foster care as an environment in which the children can live together (or at least three of them) to be lost. Finally, I can only speculate as to how each of the children will cope with a life in foster care, receiving care which is good but very different to what would be expected in a natural home and maintaining a relationship with their parents/family. This also has a potential to cause dysregulation and might undermine the placement. In short, the placement is vulnerable to disruption both from within and without. Placement with the MGM (in whatever form)[142]The positives of this option are clear. Most importantly it would preserve family life and enable a continuing relationship with the mother and the father. It would preserve the best route for the children to understand their identity and the cultural features which surround their identity. It would be a home in which they would undoubtedly be loved. It would avoid the emotional impact of severance of biological family life. If it were successful or likely to be successful then it would plainly be the right answer.[143]I appreciate this may not be possible under a care order. I accept there is a likelihood the MGM would not be approved by a fostering panel given her range of difficulties. As such a special guardianship with or without the scaffolding of a supervision order may be far more likely.[144]The negatives of this option relate to the potential for placement breakdown and the management of the MGM’s significant needs alongside those of the children. I will need to determine whether a combination of health needs, drug usage, limited support and other identified features mean the placement is far too risk laden to contemplate being pursued. A related question is as to whether the changes said to be in sight are embedded and likely to be sustained, if in fact established or fragile and vulnerable to breakdown[145]It is clear there are concerns around the MGM’s own living environment and her acceptance of that previously experienced by the children. There is a justified concern the children will face a prospect of a return to neglect if placed with the MGM.[146]There are also concerns as to the level and sustainability of support that would be required to make such a placement viable. Whilst a level of support is to be expected it is important the fundamentals of care are being provided by the proposed caregiver.[147]Finally there is in fact no guarantee this option would avoid the need for the children to be separated. Indeed, if the argument for [C] being placed alone were adopted then the arguments surrounding the alternative placement decisions for [D] and [E] would be very different. In such a situation the argument for permanency through adoption for each of them would strengthen. Adoption[148]The positives of this option surround the likelihood of the placement being safe and secure and one which meets the children’s needs whilst providing them with an emotional sense of permanency.[149]There is a potential for contact to be maintained and particularly with regard to any equally adopted siblings outside of the placement. However, the diminution in quantity and likely quality of family time is highly likely and an important negative to be brought into the account. In the case of [C] in particular there is the risk her established family relationships will make her settling into a placement harder with the risk of breakdown. I acknowledge adoption is not a panacea and can breakdown and where it does the impact of loss of a second family would be highly damaging.[150]On the evidence there is a real doubt as to finding a 4-child placement and so there will be some family separation, although this may be the case both with foster care and even placement with the MGM. However, I also accept appropriate parallel planning may mean a 3-child placement does not occur with a risk of the children being split into pairs or [C] and [F] being placed separately. If this were to be the case, then sibling contact may continue but again there is a real likelihood of this being more occasional than one might hope for. So I bring into my account the potential for sibling separation and therefore real emotional impact/harm.
My conclusions
[151]The MGM asks me to adjourn the case for a period of testing to see how she copes with caring for the children and for an opportunity to demonstrate she can provide good enough parenting. This is argued with regards to a varying group of children but was put most firmly with regards to the three oldest children or perhaps [C] alone. The logic to this approach is based on the absence of other than contact centre assessment and on the argued changes said to be evidenced by the MGM.[152]The response of the applicant and guardian is to point to the extended period over which this case has been before the Court and the consequent extended period to make changes such as to warrant a period of transition testing.[153]In my view transition testing must be based on a sufficient level of confidence of success. This must flow from the assessment of the evidence as it currently stands. It would be wrong in my judgment to over speculate when there has been a chance to demonstrate change. It would be wrong to take this step without grounds for real confidence as a failure would be catastrophic for the children.[154]Such a decision would likely delay a final decision to the point where the children will likely have been in proceedings in excess of 2 years. I frankly do not consider this option is in the welfare interests of any of the children. There has been more than sufficient time to make a case for such a placement and to make changes to evidence the same. I agree with the applicant that had change been shown within the last 18 months then we would before now have reached a point for transition testing. A failure to do so within such timescales is important evidence as to the prospects of it now occurring should more time be given.[155]I do not intend to extend the proceedings so that the children can be placed into the MGM’s care to assess whether it turns out to be successful. This is far too speculative and should be warranted on the evidence I have, not that which I might obtain.[156]Sadly I have reached a negative conclusion with respect to placement of the children, or any one of them, into the care of the MGM and whether under a special guardianship order or otherwise. I have reached this conclusion notwithstanding the love she has for each of them and the real effort she has made within the proceedings. Her effort deserves this recognition even though I have found against this option.[157]I do so because the constellation of issues is simply too much to permit a positive conclusion in her regard. I am deeply concerned as to the combination of health needs, home environment and drug use. I do not lose sight of the reality for the children which was that they were removed from a situation of neglect and I cannot countenance that being repeated. The evidence as to the home environment is of a longstanding difficulty in coming to terms with an unsuitable living environment. The evidence suggests the MGM could not recognise the likely impact of this on the children. This can be seen from the manner in which her home was presented to the ISW and her inability to recognise the impact The mother’s home was having on the children. The drug usage simply adds to my concern. It is a concern the MGM has been less than transparent in this regard and the evidence tells me her use has been at a high level. It is unclear the extent to which this is a substitute for painkillers (a decision made without medical guidance that raises concern in its own right) or has run in parallel with such use as a supplement. The evidence strongly supports some level of cannabis smoking. I accept that of itself cannabis use is not necessarily indicative of a risk of significant harm. But in this case it is almost certainly associated with some of the other challenges the MGM faces including keeping her accommodation in good order. Cannabis usage has a recognised depressant impact and is likely to have impacted on her general activity levels and focus on making change. I struggle to see when looking at all the circumstances of the case how the MGM could continue with such use and still meet the needs of these young children. One then has her significant health needs which raise a real concern as to the medium-term sustainability of any care she is to provide. Her overall health concerns are likely to impact on her engagement with the children irrespective of her good intentions. I share the concerns as to the appropriate maintenance of her medication and what this tells me about her health going forward. On her own case she has substituted cannabis for prescribed painkillers. Finally, this is a case in which the support system she points to appears limited on any case and insufficient to act as a material scaffold for her support of the children.[158]In analysing this option I have had regard to the changes which the MGM cites in support of her case. I have heard about improving health, efforts made to the home, cessation of drug usage and a developing support network. It is noteworthy that in each case the purported change appears only just to have arisen and there is an absence of any sustained change. The MGM is making some progress with her weight but it remains the start rather than the end of a lengthy journey and she will continue to have surrounding health needs. The evidence with regards to the property is at this time highly selective and does not provide evidence of likely sustained change in any event. The drug evidence at this time at best suggests a reducing level of consumption but even in the most recent month the result was a high level of consumption. The developing support network was not available only a few months ago when the ISW assessed the situation and one must be cautious as to how much support it can in reality offer. My overall sense is that the MGM, for very understandable reasons, has made a special effort as one approaches this final hearing. This is to her credit but it would have been much more helpful and informative had these changes been instituted many months ago. In reality, none of these individual changes have yet reached a position of sustained and fundamental change.[159]This leaves open a very real question as to how the MGM would then cope with all of this still to do and with a responsibility for 1-4 children. I am in no doubt there would be positives of any placement that would make life better and would be encouraging for the MGM to make change. However, any placement would also come with inevitable stresses and challenges and the current evidence is of a physical, emotional and environmental situation already under strain.[160]I have reflected on the potential of foster care as a solution. I have questioned whether it might be the right answer in conjunction with a belief in the likelihood of the MGM (or the mother) making changes within the foreseeable future. In the case of the mother I simply do not have a real level of confidence as to likely change. At this point in time she is on a negative trajectory. I hope she turns this around but I cannot make decisions based on hope alone. I am even less confident with regards to the father. The MGM’s position appears more positive but in reality even in her case a decision would reflect hope rather than real expectations.[161]This has left me considering foster-care as a likely long-term solution for the children. In the case of [F] it is almost impossible to identify the basis on which long-term foster care would be the appropriate answer. He is placed separately from his siblings and has a different relationship with them. On the evidence before me I would be consigning him to a full childhood in care with all the difficulties identified above and with only limited positives around contact. But this would be contact from an unacceptable position and I simply cannot justify the outcome simply because it will permit contact.[162]The position for the older three children is less simple given their sibling group character, their respective ages, their established family bonds and the question as to the viability of adoption. Taken on a wholly individual basis the situation would be clearer with the answer for [E] and [D] having parallels with that of [F]. They are both still very young, [E] was only just over 1 year of age when the proceedings started with [D] being 2½ years of age. They remain young and have an overwhelming need for permanence. I do not overlook [C] is materially older and any placement will pose a different challenge meaning the balance is struck differently. It is also complicated by the sibling dynamic and the question arises whether [D]’s need for permanence is outweighed by his need for a continuing daily relationship with his older sister. I have borne in mind a placement of all three children within an adoptive family comes with no guarantees but I also bear in mind there is equally no guarantee the children would remain together in foster care throughout their lives.[163]Indeed stepping back I can acknowledge the potential childhood relevance of the relationship between [E] and [F] given their ages as that between herself and [C].[164]Ultimately I recognise this is a complex and challenging decision. However, my overarching conclusion is that long-term foster care is simply not the right option for any of these children. The upsides are significantly outweighed by the absence of a permanent relationship which grounds the children and provides them with the emotional love and commitment that they both deserve and demand. The fact that a placement may not be found is not in my judgment the answer to the case. It is not for me to gauge whether such a placement is more likely than not to be found but whether if found it would be the right outcome for each child.[165]I have concluded adoption is the right outcome in this case. I reached this conclusion for all four children although I have been more hesitant in the case of [C]. Nonetheless I consider she along with her siblings cannot return to their family and it would be wrong to place them into long-term foster care when permanency could be achieved for them. Whilst I appreciate the points made as to established family connections, I balance this by the potential for placement of a number of the children together which will of course provide each of them a continuing sense of identity and stability. I appreciate these links will make finding a placement a greater challenge, but this is not the same as concluding it will be an insurmountable challenge. In my experience there are adopters who have an emotional wish to provide care not only to very young children but also children including up to [C]’s age. Such adopters come with their eyes open to the impact of established family links.[166]I have borne in mind the evidence as to statistics relating to previous placements. However, by its very nature a search for a sibling group of 3-4 is a relatively rare event. As such it is questionable to what degree statistics assist.[167]In this section of the judgment I have worked through the options in an ordered fashion. This may give the impression of a linear approach but this would be to misunderstand the nature of my analysis. Any judgment must have a structure and a linear structure is easiest to follow. I have though reflected across all options before setting out my conclusions in this judgment.[168]As to the format of any placement it seems to me an attempt to find a placement for 4 children has a high level of optimism surrounding it. I do not rule it out but I consider the applicant will likely operate a series of parallel options which may adjust over time. For my part I consider it unlikely other options will be left off the table until the two years + search for a 4-child placement has ended. This is because by introducing this delay other options may become impossible. The evidence suggests one is more likely to find a 3-child option before a 4-child placement is identified, and in such circumstances I consider the applicant may well consider the different needs of each child would justify terminating the 4-child search in favour of a separate placement for [F]. If this were supported by a good likelihood of ongoing sibling contact across the placements then this would be the more likely.[169]But I also consider the applicant should have broader flexibility and I do not intend to suggest any rigid terms to the search. On the evidence I could conceive of an outcome under which [F] and [E] were placed together with [C] and [D] in a different placement. This is not intended to be an exhaustive list of options. I consider those who know the children best within the professional team are best placed when decisions of this sort have to be made.[170]My conclusion is that I should make a placement order for each child on the basis that I have found the threshold crossed, make a care order and determine that there is nothing other than adoption that will meet the welfare needs of each of these children. I dispense with parental consent as the children’s welfare demands this outcome. I approve the care plans albeit I recognise the need for review and flexibility.[171]This is a stark interference in family life and one that has not been taken without close scrutiny. But they cannot return to their family within their timescales as they would continue to be at risk of significant harm which is not manageable even with support. It would be wholly contrary to their welfare to place them into long-term foster care. The placement outcome is the only outcome that meets their needs and as such, notwithstanding its impact remains a proportionate response.[172]I turn to the question of contact in respect of which there is a relative high level of default agreement. I agree the reduction plan for contact should be slowed from that originally envisaged with the progress to monthly contact coming at a slower pace. However, under my order a time will come when placement goes from being a search to a likelihood and close to this point steps will need to be made to further reduce contact so that any transition can be made successfully.[173]I agree all adoptive placements considered should place a high premium on sibling contact. The key sibling contact relationships are between the older children and so this would not be material if placed together. However, if apart, and particularly if that were involve any separation of [D] and [C], then this would take on added importance. I am satisfied, as is the guardian, that this applicant authority recognises this importance of this point and will keep it under close and appropriate consideration.[174]I also accept the planning with respect to consideration of post-adoption family contact including in the case of the MGM. Again I accept the applicant continues to keep this under proper consideration. To an extent any such contact needs to be assessed in the light of the family members presentation at the relevant point. Whilst contact might be theoretically important with the father it may not be if he continues to struggle with drugs. There is real benefit in there being an opportunity for the family members to meet with prospective adopters. My sense of the MGM and the mother in particular is that they could engage with contact post adoption without undermining any placement. In the case of a placement concerning [C] there is likely to be a significant positive to any placement of a level of family contact to manage her likely distress arising from separation. However, the nature of the multiple permutations arising means it is not possible to set out a rigid structure that should apply. I have considered the applicant’s evidence in this regard and approve that approach which should be appropriately recorded in the order.[175]This concludes my judgment. I intend to hand it down as agreed at 10am on 12 August 2026. This draft will be sent to counsel and can be shared with both lay and professional clients. I would request any corrections, requests for clarification and redactions for publication (other than the replacement of names with non-identifying initials) by 10am on 11 August 2026.[176]I know this judgment will be deeply distressing for the family. Sadly I cannot lighten the impact it will have upon them. I do thank them for their attendance and their co-operative and open approach throughout the hearing. I understand how difficult this must have been for them yet they conducted themselves throughout with a calm and considerate manner. I also thank counsel for the sensitive manner in which they carried out their responsibilities. The family members should be clear that all that could be said for their cases was placed before me. HHJ Willans