CASE NO: OX15C00145
THE FAMILY COURT SITTING AT READING
3RD MAY 2016 TO 5TH MAY 2016 

Before 
Her Honour Judge Owens
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

OCC v F & P
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Ms Wilkins, Counsel, for OCC
Mr Roy, Counsel, for the First Respondent Mother, CF
Ms Stephens, Counsel, for the Second Respondent Father, JP
Ms Orchover, Counsel, for the Third Respondent, LF, acting through his Children’s Guardian

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Judgment
Introduction

I am dealing with applications for Care and Placement Orders in respect of LF, aged six months.  He is the child of CF and JP who separated in January of this year and who are no longer in a relationship.   Both CF and JP are comparatively young parents and LF is their only child.  CF is also a very vulnerable young parent who has a level of learning need and has had periods of poor mental health.

I have read all of the evidence contained in the Court Bundles, and heard from various witnesses during the course of this final hearing.

Background and evidential summary

The application for a Care Order was made on 12th November 2015, with an interim care order in respect of LF being granted on 13th November 2015.  Local Authority concerns in this case centred upon the parents’ extremely dysfunctional relationship, involving allegation and counter-allegation and frequently involving the Police and the maternal grandmother, vulnerabilities of CF, personality difficulties of JP such as ADHD, anxiety and an emotionally unstable personality disorder, and neither parent having living accommodation. 

Initially the Local Authority interim care plan provided for LF to be placed with his mother in a mother and baby foster placement.  There were issues in the early weeks of the placement as it was felt that CF was distracted by her relationship and she was not attuned to LF’s basic needs.  After the parents separated, the placement was extended to allow CF the opportunity to improve her parenting without the distraction of JP.  There was some improvement initially but sadly this was not sustained and, on 31st March 2016, LF was placed in separate foster care with the endorsement of the Court.

Various assessments have been conducted in the course of these proceedings.  JP has not, however, engaged with the assessment process and has not seen LF since December 2015.  He earlier raised doubts about LF’s paternity but has failed to comply with directions in relation to DNA testing and has not filed a statement as directed to set out his position with regard to caring for his son.

CF was the subject of a parenting assessment in March 2016 (C109-141), and an ongoing social work assessment set out in the final social work statement dated 8th April 2016 (C163-172).  The parenting assessment concluded that LF would not be safe in the sole care of his mother.

CF was also assessed by Nick Keene, Clinical Psychologist.  His report, dated 3rd February 2016 (E1-11) concluded that she would struggle to bring up a child independently without substantial help on a daily basis and noted that she was a vulnerable young person.

The paternal grandfather and his partner were the subject of a viability assessment dated 16th February 2016 (C64-73).  In addition, the paternal grandmother (16th February 2016 C74-83), maternal grandmother and her partner (18th February 2016 C84-96), maternal uncle and his partner (18th February 2016 C97-105) and the maternal grandfather (30th March 2016 C162a-162j) have all been the subject of viability assessments.  These assessments were all negative.

The paternal grandmother supports the Local Authority’s plan for adoption and does not seek to challenge her assessment.  Similarly, the maternal uncle has not sought to challenge his assessment.

Parties’ positions

The Local Authority seeks final care and placement orders.  The final care plan is one of adoption, the Local Authority contending that there are no alternative kinship carers for LF.

The parents do not seek the return of LF to their care, but oppose the plan for adoption.  CF would like LF to be placed either with the maternal grandmother or the maternal grandfather, with the maternal grandfather being her first choice.  JP would like LF to be placed with the paternal grandfather.
The Guardian supports the making of final care and placement orders and agrees with the final care plan for adoption.

Relevant legal considerations

In addition to considering section 31 (2) of the Children Act 1989 with regard to threshold, and the welfare checklist contained in section1 of the Children Act 1989, I have also had regard to the cases of Re B-S and Re R.

Findings

Threshold is not in dispute in this case.  The final threshold is at A17 and, based on the evidence contained in the care proceedings Bundle, I find that threshold is met in this case and adopt the threshold document at A17 as my threshold findings.

What is in issue in this case is whether adoption is the only realistic remaining placement option for LF.  CF’s stated position at the commencement of this hearing was that she was no longer asking for LF to be returned to her care.  This is despite her final statement (and that of her mother) referring to her ‘getting her son back’ both in the headings and the body of each.  However, in her evidence to me and in final submissions to me from her advocate Mr Roy, it was clear that CF accepted that she could not care for LF either alone or with MF or SE.  The evidence in relation to her parenting capacity is, sadly, overwhelming.  The parenting assessment, whilst noting how much she loves LF, concludes that CF is unable to safely parent LF being unable to consistently meet his basic case needs (including keeping him physically safe) even whilst in the highly supportive environment of a mother and baby foster care placement.  CF also benefitted from a period of some 20 weeks in that placement, far longer than is usual in these sorts of proceedings.  Despite that lengthy period when she could have learnt additional parenting skills, CF was unable to do so. As was noted by the advocates, it has been a very brave decision for her to realise that she is unable to meet LF’s needs within his timescales. I did also note her dignity and honesty in giving me her evidence about this and I do agree that she has made a decision which has put LF’s needs first.  For this she deserves praise and sadly find that rehabilitation to his mother is not a realistic option for LF in this case.

At the heart of this case, therefore, is whether the negative viability assessments of the maternal grandmother and paternal grandfather and his partner, and the social work evidence outside of those assessments, are sufficient to rule them out as kinship carers and therefore whether there is no other option for LF but adoption.  The parents and grandparents who dispute their assessments in this case argue that the viability assessments were not necessarily factually correct and that their conclusions are flawed as a result.  They also argue that the social workers in this case have not conducted the necessary Re B-S analysis of realistic options.

The viability assessment of maternal grandmother, MF as a sole potential carer for LF, was conducted in February this year.  The document is dated 18th February 2016 and is some 13 pages long.  That in itself is worthy of note as it is longer and more detailed than many viability assessments seen in these courts.  Prior to this, in October 2015, MF had been the subject of a viability assessment of her as a carer for LF whilst permitting CF and JP to reside in her home.  That viability assessment was negative because it concluded that MF would be unable to manage the chaotic relationship of LF’s parents and therefore would be unable to provide LF with the stable and secure environment that he would require. 

The viability assessment of MF as a potential carer for LF does consider the complex background of her own parenting history which, of course, is the parenting which CF experienced.  The assessment was completed on the basis that she was offering to care for LF jointly with CF.  It records that she provided CF and her other children with a chaotic and neglectful childhood experience (C86).  It does note some positives in relation to MF, recording that she is LF’s maternal grandmother, she has the support of her husband PF and that her home is a more than adequate physical environment.

However, the concerns expressed in the viability assessment are equally valid to the issue of whether she is a safe placement option for LF as a sole carer, I find.  The concerns noted by professionals in relation to her are significant ones.  They centre upon her previous parenting of her own children, her relationship with maternal family members, her mental health issues, and her relationship with LF’s father and the controlling nature of her relationship with CF.  

Looking at these in more detail, the first concern is about her ability to adequately parent a child.  It seems clear to me that she exposed her children to a high level of instability in their childhoods.  Arrangements in terms of which parent CF and her younger brother LE were to live with were the subject of lengthy and acrimonious dispute, involving court proceedings, in the period between the breakdown of her relationship with SE in 2002 and 2014 when LE finally moved to live permanently with SE.    Prior to that move, LE moved back and forth between his parents, as did CF. During part of that period MF failed to ensure that LE attended school, SE telling me (which was not challenged) that LE was out of school for a period of 8 months in 2014 as a result of MF failing to secure permanent accommodation.  As SE also told me, despite there being a Court order in place for LE to live with him as that was in LE’s best interests, MF “took it upon herself to ignore the Court order”.  LE also appears to have chosen not to have direct contact with MF at present and it appears that there is very little indirect contact either.  MF told me that she could not remember the last time that she saw or spoke to LE.   I find that she has been unable to maintain contact with LE and that this is evidence of her inability to meet his emotional need for some form of relationship with his birth mother.  She has also historically failed to meet his educational needs when she failed to ensure that he attended school for a period of 8 months, a considerable time for a school age child of any age. 

The other serious issue in relation to MF’s capacity to parent which the evidence identifies is that she failed to protect her children from risk of sexual harm.  CF was subject to a child protection plan whilst in the care of her mother.  In 2010 CF disclosed that she had been sexually abused by a male.  That male received a Police warning for this.  However, despite this, MF felt it appropriate to offer the male accommodation in her family home.  MF denied this and any knowledge at the time that there was a child protection plan in place, but was unable to offer any explanation as to why so many professional records in relation to this would be wrong.  In 2005 she does accept that she allowed another male to live in her house as a lodger.  He also posed a risk to her children but, rather than simply asking him to leave immediately, it appears that she allowed him to stay for at least a while, making arrangements to supervise the children whenever he was in the house.  MF does accept that this was a mistake which put her son and daughter “at very high danger as I did not find any think out about him before I took him in (sic)” (MF statement at C202).   I find that on two separate occasions MF exposed her children to significant risk of harm in relation to allowing two separate individuals to reside in her home.  I also find that MF is minimising the level of risk of significant harm that she exposed her children to, both in relation to this and in relation to her failure to ensure stability for them during the dispute about where they should reside.  

Her relationship with her eldest son, DI, is also fraught.  Whilst MF did not accept this as factually accurate, it does appear that DI has chosen not to provide his telephone details to his mother.  C98 of the viability assessment of DI details that he has done this as a way of protecting his son from the “continuing drama and chaos of his maternal family”.  It also records that MF has made allegations about his use of inappropriate physical chastisement to discipline his son.  On any reading, this does support the view that their relationship is at best strained.  MF also accepted that she did not have her son’s telephone number, which would tend to support what DI has said about not providing her with those details.  The explanation which MF gave me for this was that it somehow related to her not getting on with DI’s father and that it was also connected somehow to her falling out with her daughter-in-law.  I am afraid that I found her explanation lacking credibility and confused.  On balance of probability it seems more likely than not that DI has had to withhold his telephone number in order to protect his family from his mother.

Both SE and MF told me that their relationship had improved.  The history of their relationship is not a happy one, with a prolonged period of disputes about their children.  MF made a series of allegations about SE’s care of CF.  SE struggled to ensure that CF and LE remained living with him despite concerns about MF’s care of them.  As the viability assessment of him notes, he now has care of LE and is able to meet LE’s needs.  It also notes that his offer to care for LF is genuine but there is a high risk of placement with him being destabilised by the involvement of CF and MF with LF.  The social worker notes at C162h that she does not believe that SE “fully understands or believes the concerns around CF’s care of LF demonstrated by his lack of need to assert himself over her and challenge her decisions and his initial denial of her difficulties…SE seems unable to recognise the negative influence of MF on CF, inviting her to be involved without condition if CF and LF come to reside with him”.  The assessment also notes (C162h) concern about the relationship between LE and SE if he were to care for LF (albeit that at this point the assessment was looking at CF also living in the same household).  SE also appeared genuine in his evidence to me about his desire to look after LF.  Sadly I find that he did appear to still not fully understand the concerns around CF and MF.  He told me that he thought CF might improve in her parenting ability in the future, noting that she is young and has a lot to learn.  This appears to indicate that he still harbours hopes that CF could be involved in LF’s care at some point in the future, suggesting to me that he did not view the placement with him as a permanent arrangement for the rest of LF’s childhood and beyond.  I also find that he tended to minimise the issues which he has experienced with MF in the past and up to 2014 when LE came to live permanently with him.  I am not persuaded that he would be able to act as protectively for LF as would need to if relations with MF again became difficult.  The sheer number and severity of allegations which she appears to have made against him in the past, coupled with his inability to ensure that LE remained with him and attended school regularly lead me to this conclusion.  I suspect that relations between them have indeed improved but largely because there is at present minimal contact between them in relation to LE and no current conflict in relation to CF.  Given the history, I find that increased contact between them carries the real risk of conflict if issues arise.  It also seems likely that issues will arise given the past history between them of failure to agree about arrangements for LE and CF.  

In relation to MF’s mental health, she accepts that she has experienced two very significant periods of difficulty.  In 2005 and 2015 she attempted suicide through taking an overdose.  The first incident was after CF and LE moved to the care of their father.  The second appears to have been triggered by the difficulties caused by her relationship with LF’s father, JP.  MF tells me that her GP says she is currently at “low risk” of further attempt and therefore does not currently need to see her GP.  I have no medical evidence to support this from her GP and it also appears that, despite two attempts, she has not received any form of counselling or therapy.  As a result I am unclear as to whether her ability to cope with stress has improved and therefore she is at lower risk of future attempts, or whether it is simply that JP moving out of her household and the overall level of family conflict diminishing has led to a reduction in pressures upon her.

The penultimate area of concern relating to MF identified by the Local Authority is her relationship with LF’s father, JP.  The social work chronology details numerous instances of calls to social services by both MF and JP.  Both would probably accept that their relationship was fraught and volatile.  However, the main issue here is rather more the concern about them both competing for CF’s time and the question of whether MF would be able to actively promote LF’s relationship with his father if LF were to be placed in her care.  

In relation to the question of competing for CF’s time, there are really quite extraordinary examples in the chronology and social work evidence to support the Local Authority case about this.  A theme emerges from this chronology of each contacting social services or the police to complain about the other on numerous times between 6th January 2015 and 12th October 2015.  Each seems to be competing for the attention of CF.  MF says on 26th May 2015 that “CF won’t return her calls and if she chooses JP over her she will wash her hands of her and baby” (CH12).  On the same date, three phone calls later, MF was saying to the social worker that if CF left the house she would get nothing that had been bought for her grandchild (CH13).  JP reports that MF is holding CF hostage on 14th August 2015 (CH19).  On 17th August 2015 MF contacts the duty social worker to say that JP had been constantly calling CF but CF appears reluctant to come to the phone to discuss this and is heard to say that JP would not call her again (CH20).   18th August 2015 MF is noted to have contacted the social worker again and made reference to her washing her hands of CF if she does not return home (CH22).  This pattern continues and on 24th August 2015 MF contacts the social worker again to complain about JP because CF stayed with her on the Friday night but JP was constantly calling her to return to him (CH25).  Again on the same date MF makes reference to washing her hands of CF (CH25).  At CH27 CF says that MF has asked her to choose between JP and her.  MF threatened not to give CF another penny for her or the baby until CF starts spending time with her again (CH27).

This appears to culminate in an agreement between MF, JP and CF as to the time CF will spend with each.  This is really quite extraordinary in relation to an adult, let alone one as clearly vulnerable as CF.  Unfortunately, this agreement lead to more arguments between JP and MF about the amount of time each were spending with CF as they keep alleging breaches of the agreement (see for example CH28 and CH29).  I have to say that I really felt for CF when I heard about this agreement.  It seemed to me that she was torn between her mother and her boyfriend and desperately tried to divide her time fairly between the two of them.  Both appear to have acted with no thought for CF’s needs and viewed her as something of a possession.  Whilst I am very clear that JP may well have sought to control his girlfriend as part of a cycle of what may well have been an abusive and dysfunctional relationship, it is equally clear to me that MF has sought to dominate her daughter and to prioritise MF’s needs.  CF herself has acknowledged “that at times the relationship between me and my mother has also been difficult and she has taken decisions and allowed situations which with hindsight was ill-advised” (C28).  It would also appear that the impact of the extremely dysfunctional relationship between JP and MF was such that MF attempted suicide as a result.  I can understand how difficult it must have been to cope with what was undoubtedly very challenging behaviour on the part of JP.  However, MF does not seem to have helped the situation and, I find, actually made it far worse with her continual complaints to anyone in authority about JP and her attempts to force CF to choose between her and JP.  Particularly troubling is that MF did this whilst CF was pregnant with LF.  In addition, I agree with the social worker’s analysis that some of the  calls recorded in the chronology from MF “appear to be frequent, non-specific and reporting issues where the Police would find difficulty resolving” (C93).    

I am also clear that MF has had a very controlling relationship with CF.  Her constant references to washing her hands of CF within the chronology if CF remains with JP and the sheer number of times that she contacted social services to complain about what her daughter was doing is evidence of this.  As was noted by Mr Keene in his psychological assessment of CF, she has suffered neglect and emotional abuse from both of her parents (E8).  She remains, in his opinion, vulnerable to abuse or exploitation by partners in the future (E8).  It seems to me that this vulnerability may also extend to her being controlled by her mother based on the evidence in the chronology.  CF clearly tried to please both her mother and JP and MF.  MF (who supports her financially) threatened to withdraw any support for her.  This must have placed CF in an almost impossible situation.

Notwithstanding that JP has not played an active part in these proceedings, as the allocated social worker told me in his evidence, JP has not entirely disengaged from involvement with LF.  There is therefore the real possibility that JP may seek contact with LF if LF were to be placed with MF.  I find that MF would be unable to adequately promote such contact given her history with JP as evidenced by the chronology.

I have therefore no hesitation in concluding that, based on my findings above, MF would be unable to offer LF a safe placement now or in the long term.   This is despite the positives recorded and which I have noted in relation to her. The next alternative kinship carer who disputes their negative assessment is the paternal grandfather, JuP. His assessment and that of his wife is at C64-73 and does note significant positives in relation to his care of his children and adult child.  However, this assessment is a negative assessment, concluding that the special needs of two of their children (one of whom is actually an adult) and their understanding of ‘identity’ preclude them from being suitable for caring for LF.  I would note that it is greatly to his and his wife’s credit that they have put themselves forward as potential kinship carers for LF.  They are clearly trying to offer care for LF out of genuinely altruistic motives, I find.  

The assessment identifies two significant areas of concern in relation to their potential to safely care for LF.  The first is that their own health needs are likely to impact upon their ability to meet the needs of their own children and the needs of LF.  This is based upon the fact that each has painful and debilitating conditions to varying degrees.  The conditions in question are osteoarthritis and it seems clear that in relation to AP her condition is much less severe and requires much less medication to manage.  In relation to JuP, it became apparent during his evidence to me that he is taking prescribed morphine for management of his pain and sleeping as a result of that pain, in addition to other pain medication.  His consumption of prescription morphine is such that he would need support to cease taking it, he told me, though he did also say that he has been talking to his GP about ceasing to take morphine.  Whilst this in itself would not preclude JuP and his wife caring for LF, I find, it is an additional concern in relation to his ability to manage the needs of both of his children with additional needs and LF.

By far the most significant issue in relation to JuP’s ability (and that of his wife) to care for LF is that they are currently the parents of five children, two of whom are adults.  Of those two adults, one is AP and the other is one who lives with them but who has Soto’s syndrome.  This means that she will be unable to live independently for the rest of her life and, despite having a job working in the local Co-Op, JuP’s wife is her registered carer.  She receives payment of carers allowance on the basis that this daughter requires 35 hours of care per week, I was told by JuP. In addition to this, JuP has another daughter who has Down’s syndrome.  The daughter in question is currently only a toddler but it is clear that her needs will increase as she grows.  As it is, JuP accepted in his evidence to me that he has to take her to a significant number of appointments on a regular basis.  In addition to this daughter, he also has two other young children, one of whom is currently receiving input from CAMHS.  

The analysis of the social worker in the viability assessment does unfortunately confuse the adult child with Soto’s syndrome with one of the younger children.  This level of error is one that is not to be expected ordinarily.  However, the social worker in question was clear to me that he made this error because of the difficulty in sorting out which child was being discussed by the parents when he saw them for the viability assessment.  And regardless of the confusion, the fact remains that JuP and his wife are caring for one child who has Downs syndrome and one adult child who has Soto’s syndrome.  They also have two other children, one of whom is only 3 years old and the other is 11 but currently has been referred to CAMHS.  There is also a Team Around the Child (TAC) involved with his youngest child (the one with Downs Syndrome).  I was also told by the current allocated social worker that Consultant with overall responsibility for their daughter with Downs syndrome has concerns about JuP’s ability to meet the needs of this daughter if another child with additional needs were to be placed with them. I find that JuP and his wife have significant caring commitments with their existing children, let alone LF.  It was also clear that JuP was wholly unaware of the conclusions in the adoption medical for LF (C4 Placement Bundle) that he is likely to have additional needs of his own as he grows up until he was shown it in the course of his giving evidence to me.  It is greatly to his credit that, despite his apparent shock at realising that LF may have additional needs, he still sought to put himself forward as a potential carer for LF.   However, I find that he is already subject to considerable caring commitments as noted in the viability assessment and by the Guardian in her report at E20 and in evidence to me.  As the Guardian notes “ the impression given by the TAC minutes is that there is a lot going on for this family already” (E20).  In addition to the children and vulnerable adult noted, JP and his wife also currently provide accommodation for another adult child.  He is said to be on the point of moving out to live with his girlfriend.  If he is unable to move out or has to move back in, JP was clear in his evidence to me that he would provide him with accommodation by allowing him to sleep on a temporary bed in the living room.  

In addition to the above findings, I also have to note that JuP has not felt able to provide JP with his current address.  Whilst this is clearly accepted by all of the professionals in this case to be a short-term protective move for the children currently in his care, it does seem likely to me that this strategy would not be one that would survive long term if LF were to be placed with JuP and his wife.  As JP is one of the concerns that the Local Authority validly have in terms of dysfunctional and damaging family relationships (MF is the other), this does lead me to conclude that there may well be a risk of JP’s extremely difficult and challenging behaviour disrupting this placement for LF in the future.   In relation to MF, I am less concerned about the impact that she may have on this placement since her involvement with JuP seems to have been minimal and, so far, perfectly polite according to his evidence.  

The other kinship carer who has been assessed negatively in relation to his ability to care for LF is SE, CF’s father.  As I have noted in my findings above, there is a long and complex history in relation to SE and MF concerning MF’s ability to care for CF and her brother LE.  Again, the evidence does show some very real positives in relation to SE.  However, there are also some significant negatives noted in relation to him.  He already provides care for LE who has special needs and requires a great deal of his attention as the Guardian notes at E19.  Apart from the troubling history which SE has with MF as I have noted, he still seems to demonstrate a lack of ability to act protectively when faced with challenges from MF, I find.  The evidence for this is his actions when he assisted in transporting LF to court at the end of March this year.  SE told me that CF asked him to give her a lift and did not mention bringing LF with her.  It seems that he accepts there may well have been discussions with MF apart from this when he gave me his evidence, but he maintained that it was not something that he questioned when he arrived to pick CF up and found that she had LF with her.  I agree with the Guardian’s conclusion at E19 that this is evidence of his lack of insight in to the concerns raised by the professionals about MF.  At the very least he should have asked more questions about why LF was being brought to court (in itself an unsuitable environment for a very young and vulnerable child).  Again, I find that SE is perfectly genuine in his desire to offer a permanent home for LF.  However, I find that he would struggle to care for LF and LE and meet both of their competing needs, no matter how willing he may be to give up his work.  

In relation to all three potential kinship carers considered above, there is also one common concern about how they would manage the issue of contact with family members where “the relationships and dynamics can be volatile: this could represent a particular challenge” as the Guardian notes (E98). JuP’s current stance that JP does not and cannot know his address is unlikely to be a successful strategy, by his own admission.  As LF grows he is increasingly likely to mention something to JP during contact that would lead to the identification of JuP’s home address, I find, and JuP seemed to accept this in his evidence to me.   I have earlier noted my concerns about the  impact which JP’s extremely difficult and challenging behaviour could have upon the stability of a placement with JuP. It is also both interesting and concerning to note that many of the potential kinship carers assessed have expressed concerns about the other kinship carers potential to manage the family dynamics or care for LF.  I find that this speaks volumes as to the level of dysfunction and potential challenge that may exist if LF were to be placed with any of his birth family members.  In addition, there is a particularly fraught history between SE and MF which lasted over several years.  Whilst both tell me that their relationship has currently improved, I have seen no evidence that their ability to manage disputes or conflict around their children or grandchild has improved.  It seems more likely to me that any improvement in their current relationship is simply because there is no disagreement at present between them in relation to arrangements over LE, CF or PI.  I therefore also conclude that a kinship placement for LF with MF, SE or JuP would not protect him from the challenging and dysfunctional family dynamics, and this would pose a real risk to the stability of his placement.

Conclusions

In light of my findings above, I have to sadly conclude that adoption for LF is the only option that remains.  I have considered the two welfare checklists as set out in section 1 of the Children Act 1989 and section 1 of the Adoption & Children Act 2002.  In particular, I have considered the capacity of his parents or others to meet his needs and have to conclude that none are capable of meeting his needs now or in the future.  I am satisfied that the social workers in this case have carefully conducted the required balancing exercise of positives and negatives in relation to the realistic options in this case. In relation to any risk of harm to him in the future, the evidence in this case demonstrates on balance of probabilities that he would be at risk of his needs not being met and the stability of his placement being undermined by the challenges around the dysfunctional family dynamics as I have noted earlier.  This is despite the genuine intentions of his birth family members in asking for him to be placed with them, I find.

I am aware that severing LF’s relationship with his birth family will cause him to suffer the loss of his immediate link with his birth family, which may well cause him to feel a sense of loss in the future.  I find that suitable life story work in future should ameliorate this sense of loss and help to address any questions he may have about his identity having ceased to be a member of his birth family.  Adoption offers him the best chance of security and stability, though I do note that there is a risk of an adoptive placement breaking down as it is not a panacea.  I agree with the conclusions of the Guardian at E21 in light of the evidence in this case that “adoption represents the only option for LF’s needs to be met, and for him to be safely parented and cared for”.  It is also, I find, a necessary and proportionate interference with his Article 8 rights and those of his family members in light of my findings above.  The contact proposals for LF set out at D19 in the final care plan are appropriate in his welfare interests, I conclude, and will minimise the potential for any family dysfunction to disrupt any prospective adoptive placement.

I also conclude that LF’s welfare demands that I dispense with the consent of his parents to the making of a placement order.

I will therefore grant a care order and endorse the local authority care plan for adoption.  I will also dispense with the consent of his parents and grant a placement order for him.