This judgment was delivered in private. The judge has given leave for this version of the judgment to be published on condition that (irrespective of what is contained in the judgment) in any published version of the judgment the anonymity of the children and members of their family must be strictly preserved. All persons, including representatives of the media, must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so will be a contempt of court.	

Case No: NE17C00106
IN THE FAMILY COURT 
AT NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE
The Law Courts
The Quayside
Newcastle-Upon-Tyne
NE1 3LA.

Date: Thursday 11th January 2018 

Before:
RECORDER HENLEY
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between:

	NEWCASTLE CITY COUNCIL	Applicant	
	- and -		
	(1) M
(2) F
(3) PGM
(4) THE CHILDREN	

Respondents	
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Digital Transcription by Marten Walsh Cherer Ltd.,
1st Floor, Quality House, 6-9 Quality Court, Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1HP.
Telephone No: 020 7067 2900. Fax No: 020 7831 6864 DX 410 LDE
Email: info@martenwalshcherer.com 
Web: www.martenwalshcherer.com 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MS. K. WOOD for the Applicant
MS. B. DAWSON for the 1st Respondent
MS. A. HOWEY for the 2nd Respondent
The 3rd Respondent appeared in person
MR. J. WORRELL for the Guardian
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment Approved
RECORDER HENLEY: 
1.	This is an application for care and placement orders brought by the Local Authority, Newcastle City Council.  The court is concerned with three children, L, born [a date in] 2011, aged 6 years, D, born [a date in] 2012, aged five years, and J, born [a date in] 2014.  He is aged some three years and 11 months.
2.	All three children reside together in Local Authority foster care with Mr. and Mrs. G under the auspices of interim care orders.  Mr. and Mrs. G are Local Authority foster carers who are currently approved as short-term carers of the children.
3.	L and J suffer from chromosomal disorder, namely duplication of the sixteenth chromosome, and all three children suffer from global developmental delay, although it is right to acknowledge that D has made considerable progress in that regard in particular.  They do, however, all have complex emotional and behavioural needs, particularly J, whose behaviour is especially challenging, both within a school environment and within his placement.
4.	The mother of all three children is M, born on [a date in] 1993.  She is 24 years old.  The father of all three children is F, born [a date in] 1986, aged 31 years old.
5.	The Third Respondent is the children’s paternal grandmother, PGM, born [a date in] 1965, aged 52 years old.
6.	The matter comes before the court for a final hearing in public law proceedings originally with a time estimate of three days.  These proceedings were issued on 14th February 2017.   The 26 week timetable for the conclusion of the case expired on 15th August 2017.
7.	This case was originally timetabled through to an earlier final hearing in October 2017 but that hearing was ultimately adjourned to permit further evidence to be filed in respect of the availability of foster care and adoptive placements for the children.
8.	During this hearing I have heard from the legal representatives for each of the parties.  PGM has addressed me at times in person, although chose not to make submissions.  I have read the bundle of documents filed for these proceedings.  I have heard oral evidence from the following witnesses: J Priestly, the children’s allocated social worker, Linda Rankin, adoption social worker, Marie Robinson, team manager for the fostering team and lead in long-term family finding, Desmond Gavin Ritchey, link social worker in the fostering team (he has been Mr. and Mrs. G’s allocated link worker since May of 2013), from the mother, the paternal grandmother and the children’s Guardian, Laura Grundy.
9.	In terms of the background, the children are understood to be full siblings.  The father failed to engage in scientific testing to establish paternity but scientific testing conducted between the siblings established the likelihood that they are full siblings.  Mr. B is named on each of the children’s birth certificates and therefore has parental responsibility in respect of each of them.
10.	The family has been known to the Local Authority since 2011 as a consequence of referrals made that the children were being neglected in the care of the mother and exposed to domestic violence as a consequence of violence in the parents’ relationship and then violence in the mother’s relationship with Mr. F.
11.	The children were most recently made the subject of child protection plans under the category of “neglect” in January 2016.  On 18th October 2016 the children were voluntarily accommodated in Local Authority foster care pursuant to section 20 of the Children Act 1989 following an allegation made by D that she had been assaulted by Mr. F, specifically that he had kicked her in the back.  She was seen to have bruising to her lower back at the time.  A finding in this regard is not sought and the court is not invited to examine the evidence surrounding this allegation.  Mr. F has played no part in these proceedings.
12.	Since that time the children have been accommodated and indeed have remained placed together throughout these proceedings, in the care of Local Authority foster carers Mr and Mrs G.  All parties accept and acknowledge that the children are thriving within their placement.  
13.	The children have had no contact with the father since they were accommodated, they have had one session of direct supervised contact with the paternal grandmother in the summer of 2017 when she joined one of the mother’s supervised contact sessions, and one item of indirect contact has been passed from the paternal grandmother, namely a card, which has been shared with them.  That is the only item of indirect contact shared with them since these proceedings began.  It was shared with them shortly after the last hearing in October 2017, either at the end of October or beginning of November 2017, by Mr. Priestly, the children’s social worker.   The reason for this limited amount of indirect contact has been in dispute during the course of this hearing.
14.	On 9th March 2017 the court granted interim care orders in respect of all three children.  The children currently have contact with their mother on two occasions each week for 90 minutes each session.   At an earlier stage in these proceedings one of the sessions each week involved separate contact with the children with J attending a session on his own and the girls attending the other session, but this changed in the summer of 2017 and the mother now enjoys contact with all three children on each occasion.
15.	It is accepted by the Local Authority that the mother’s attendance at contact has been good, that she is punctual in her attendance and her love for and commitment to these children is not disputed; nor is their love for her.
16.	In terms of the positions of the parties, the Local Authority seeks care orders and placement orders in respect of all three children with a view to placing them all for adoption.  The Local Authority’s final care plans are dated 27th November 2017.  They propose that the girls be placed for adoption together but that J be placed separately on his own.  The care plans propose that a nine month national search should be embarked upon to find adoptive placements for the children with a contingency plan for long-term foster care.
17.	During the search the Local Authority proposes that the mother’s contact be reduced to take place on six occasions each year, once in each school holiday pending placements being identified.  Should adoptive placements be found for the children, final contact and preparatory work with them would be arranged leading to the Local Authority progressing with a match and placement.  If the children are adopted the mother and paternal grandmother will be offered indirect contact only via the post-box system but any prospective adopters would be encouraged to promote direct sibling contact should all the children be placed for adoption.
18.	The mother’s position changed on the first morning of the final hearing.  She now accepts that she is not in a position to care for the children and instead supports them remaining together with their current foster carers, Mr. and Mrs. G, under the auspices of care orders, or, if that is not possible, in another long-term foster placement.  I have no doubt that the decision that she took on the first morning of this hearing was an extremely difficult one for her.  It is a child-focused and courageous decision.
19.	The Mother opposes the children being placed with PGM and opposes them being placed separately or adopted.  She seeks to maintain the current level of contact that she has with the children, namely, twice each week.
20.	The father has filed a statement dated 5th January 2018 in which he indicates his support for the children being cared for by his mother, PGM, and his opposition to them being placed with the mother.  He failed to attend this final hearing.  On the first morning of the hearing, Miss Howey, counsel on his behalf, applied to withdraw from the proceedings.  I refused that application, on the basis that she had signed up-to-date instructions from the father, that the father could have attended court at any stage during the course of the hearing and that it seemed to me his case was primarily to advance the grandmother as a prospective carer for the children.  The grandmother appears in person in these proceedings and it seemed to me that she would benefit greatly from any assistance that Miss Howey could give her.
21.	At the outset of the hearing PGM, the paternal grandmother, sought to care for all three children.  As I have said, she appears in person having been joined as a party on 15th June 2017.
22.	Following my refusal to grant permission for the father’s counsel to withdraw I am very grateful to Miss Howey for clarifying PGM's position and informing me that she no longer sought to advance a case to care for any of the children.  Again, in my view, her position is a child-centred one and I do not doubt it was a difficult decision for her to make.  I was informed that she sought supervised contact with the children only and I was also told that once the father was made aware of the grandmother’s change of position he accepted and supported the position that she now advances.
23.	The children’s guardian supports the Local Authority’s position that none of the children can be cared for within their birth family and that care orders should be made in respect of all three of them.  She does not support the care plans for the girls, however, and argues that L and D should be placed in long-term foster care together.  She supports the care plan for J and therefore agrees that a care order and a placement order should be made in respect of him to permit him to be placed for adoption.
24.	The guardian’s recommendation in respect of J’s placement has changed.  In her earlier report, dated 22nd September 2017, prepared as a final analysis for an earlier final hearing, she initially recommended that all three children should remain together placed in long-term foster care and that robust consideration should be given to whether they could remain with Mr. and Mrs. G.  In her updated report, dated 5th January 2018, prepared shortly  before this hearing commenced, she reluctantly accepted that the children needed to be separated and that J’s needs are such that he should be placed apart from his sisters.  She recommends that he be placed for adoption alone but she continues to oppose adoption for the girls, recommending that they be placed together in long-term foster care.
25.	At the outset of the hearing the Guardian supported Mr. and Mrs. G as prospective long-term foster carers for the girls.  As a consequence of the evidence which emerged during this hearing she now takes the view that a robust investigation into their capacity to safely meet the needs of the children is required and accepts that it now appears unlikely that they will be successfully approved as long-term foster carers for any of the children.
26.	Notwithstanding the concerns which have emerged about Mr and Mrs G she continues to maintain that the girls should be placed in long-term foster care, even though she now acknowledges that it appears likely that that will involve a change of placement for them.
27.	At the outset of the hearing I requested that the guardian’s final report dated 3rd January 2018 be sent to the agency decision maker to clarify that nothing within that report changed their view.  This took place on the first day of the hearing and I was informed by Miss Wood, counsel for the Local Authority, that the agency decision maker had read that report and remained of the view that adoption was the most appropriate care plan for all three children.
28.	In terms of the threshold criteria, the mother has made some significant concessions in respect of the question of criteria, pursuant to section 31(2) of the Children Act 1989, and the Local Authority is content not to pursue any additional finding against her on that basis.
29.	In the mother’s response to the threshold document dated 9th March 2017 she makes the following admissions: (1) that her previous partner, Mr. F, was violent and aggressive towards her; (2) that she reported to the police on 15th October 2016 that glass panels in the family home had been broken by an unknown perpetrator.  She accepts that  Mr. F caused this damage;  (3) that she concealed her relationship with Mr. F; (4) that she had not always reported incidents of domestic violence in a timely manner; (5) that the children had witnessed violence and frightening adult behaviours and that she acknowledges that this would have caused the children harm; (6) that she had not prioritised the school attendance of L and D and therefore had failed to consistently meet their educational needs; (7) that she failed to consistently meet the children’s medical needs; (8) that she struggled at times to manage the behaviour of all three children; (9) that she has experienced depression and low mood which has impacted upon the care of the children and that she has failed to seek appropriate professional help in respect of her mental health concerns and failed to consistently take her prescribed antidepressant medication.  Finally, that the father perpetrated domestic violence towards her which placed the children at risk of harm.
30.	On the basis of these concessions I am satisfied that the threshold criteria for the making of public law orders pursuant to section 31 of the Children Act 1989 is crossed and I am satisfied that the children suffered significant emotional harm and neglect in the care of the mother and that they were at risk of suffering physical harm in her care as a consequence of exposure to domestic violence.
The legal framework in respect of welfare decisions.  
31.	I remind myself that each child’s welfare is my paramount consideration.  That is section 1(1) of the Children Act 1989.
32.	In considering what orders to make I have to have regard to the welfare checklist found at section 1(3) of the 1989 Act.  In relation to the threshold criteria, as I have already indicated, I am satisfied that at the time protective measures were taken, each child had suffered and was at risk of suffering significant emotional harm and neglect and at risk of suffering physical harm as a consequence of exposure to domestic violence.  As a consequence of being satisfied that the threshold criteria are crossed it of course opens the gateway for me to make public law orders.  All of the parties agree that the threshold is crossed in this case and therefore the hearing has focused on welfare considerations only.
33.	I then must go on to consider which orders, if any, are in the best interests of the children, starting very clearly from the position that wherever possible children should be brought up by their natural parents and, if not, other members of their family.  The State should not interfere in family life so as to separate children from their families unless it has been demonstrated to be both necessary and proportionate and that no other less radical form of order would achieve the essential aim of promoting their welfare.  In Re B [2013] UKSC 33 the Supreme Court emphasised this, reminding us that such orders are very extreme, should only be made when necessary for the protection of the child’s interest when nothing else will do and that the court must never lose sight of the fact that the child’s interests include being brought up by their natural family, ideally their parents or at least one of them.  It is not for the court to look for a better placement for a child; social engineering is not permitted.  In the case of YC v. The United Kingdom [2012] 55 EHRR 967 it was said: “Family ties may only be severed in very exceptional circumstances and everything must be done to preserve personal relations and where appropriate to rebuild the family.  It is not enough to show that a child could be placed in a more beneficial environment for their upbringing”.
34.	I have looked again at the words of the President in Re: BS [2013] EWCA Civ 1146 as well as the judgments in Re: B [2013] and have reminded myself of the importance of addressing to my mind all of the realistic options for the children, taking into account the assistance and support which authorities always would offer.
35.	In considering whether to make care orders in respect of the children I must have close regard to the Article 6 ECHR and Article 8 ECHR rights of each family member and of each child, but I remind myself that where there is a tension between the Article 8 rights as an adult family member on the one hand and of the child on the other the rights of the child prevail, Yousef v. The Netherlands [2003] 1 FLR 210.
36.	In terms of the Local Authority’s application for placement orders it is trite law that I must be satisfied that any orders I make are lawful, necessary, proportionate and a reasonable response to each child’s predicament.  The granting of a placement order represents the most drastic curtailment of the right of these parents and the grandmother, and indeed of the children under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms which can only be justified by pressing concerns for their welfare.  However, in construing both convention and domestic law I have the assistance of the decision of the Supreme Court in Re: B (A child) [2013] followed by the decisions of the Court of Appeal in Re: P [2013] EWCA 963 and Re: G [2013] EWCA 965.  Those cases firmly re-emphasise that a placement for adoption is a very extreme thing and a last resort to be proved only when nothing else will do.  Both domestic and convention law do require a high degree of justification before adoption can be endorsed as necessary, the term in the convention, or required, the term in the Adoption and Children Act 2002.
37.	I must apply the welfare checklist found in section 1(4) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 and I must be satisfied that the making of a placement order accords with each child’s welfare throughout their life.  If I conclude that each child’s welfare throughout their life demands that such an order is made then the law requires me to dispense with the consent of the parents to the making of a placement order, in circumstances in which they oppose that application.
38.	In light of the revised position for the mother and maternal grandmother I now have two realistic options before me in respect of each child: long-term foster care or adoption.  The parties accept that there are no other viable alternative family or kinship placements available to any of the children.  It is to the great credit of both the mother and the paternal grandmother that they have each reached the, no doubt difficult decision, that they are not able to care for any of the children.  Having read the unchallenged assessments in this matter and having considered the complex needs of these children I am satisfied that neither the mother nor the paternal grandmother is capable of meeting the children’s needs or caring for any of them at the current time or within an acceptable timeframe.  I accept the evidence of the Local Authority and the children’s guardian in that regard.
39.	When contemplating which care option is in the best interests of each child I must consider their needs now and in the future.  To that end I have the benefit of the medical reports of Dr. L, Consultant Paediatrician, who is their treating doctor.  L and J both suffer from inherited chromosome duplication disorder, specifically duplication of the sixteenth chromosome which is commonly associated with developmental delay and can be associated with ADHD and autism.  They each have complex care needs.
40.	In addition to the duplication of the sixteenth chromosome, L was exposed to alcohol in utero by the mother as a consequence of the late confirmation of her pregnancy.  No formal diagnosis of foetal alcohol syndrome has been made but it is possible that L may begin to exhibit some of the behavioural, emotional and developmental difficulties associated with that condition during her childhood and beyond.  She does suffer from significant global developmental delay which inhibits her learning, communication skills and peer relationships.  Her chromosomal condition is particularly associated with delay in speech and language which is apparent in L.  Her ability to concentrate is impaired and her memory retention is adversely affected.  When she gets anxious she suffers from faecal incontinence.  She suffers from some visual impairment which has been attempted to be corrected using an eye patch.  As a consequence of her genetic diagnosis and developmental delay she is likely to have continued developmental needs and will require additional support at school.   She has had to repeat her reception year in school and attends specialist educational provision.  She has had a referral for speech and language therapy.
41.	L has made considerable progress in her foster placement but requires a lot of reassurance and reiterated guidance from her carers.  She does not like changes to her routine and is an anxious child.  She appears to have some delays in her physical development, with her school reporting that she occasionally falls over and can appear unsteady when running.
42.	D does not suffer from the same genetic condition as her siblings but she does suffer a degree of developmental delay which is thought to be as a consequence of parental neglect.  D suffers from eczema which can flare up when she is anxious.  She has made considerable progress in the care of her foster carers and is more socially able and self-confident than her siblings.  She is functioning at a level below her peers in mainstream school but has made notable progress in that regard in recent months.
43.	J, like L, suffers from duplication of the sixteenth chromosome and associated significant global developmental delay.  Recent care team discussions mooted whether he additionally suffers from ADHD or autism.  In his oral evidence Mr. Priestly confirmed to the court that Dr. L has indicated that his behaviours are likely to be linked to his genetic condition and therefore that medication is not an appropriate treatment plan for him.  J has been attending (school named), a specialist resource, since September 2017.  He has been increasingly prone to violent outbursts and at times presents a risk to both himself and to others.  He is described by his school as “very angry”.  His outbursts are unpredictable and therefore he requires constant oversight and supervision.  His behaviour can be aggressive, both in school and within his placement.
44.	Mr. Priestly described J as a physically large and strong child for his age who is not aware of his own strength.  He has low muscle tone and delayed speech, he becomes easily distressed when uncertain, he does not engage easily with others and has very poor eye contact.  It is likely that he is going to need special educational provision and it is likely that he will need considerable support from skilled carers in the future, if he is to meet his potential.
45.	All three children have lived together their entire lives.  They have been placed with Mr. and Mrs. G since their removal to foster care some 15 months ago.  All parties accept that they have thrived within that placement and that Mr. and Mrs. G are currently meeting their needs to a high standard.
46.	When I consider long-term foster care, the position advanced on behalf of the family, for perfectly understandable reasons, is that all three children should remain in their current long-term foster placement with Mr. and Mrs. G, or, in the alternative, in another long-term foster placement.  It goes without saying that this would permit all three children to remain placed together, it would allow for the direct contact to the parents, subject to the father engaging with a risk assessment, and with the paternal grandmother, subject to her commitment to attending such contact and it not having an adverse impact upon the children.  It would preserve sibling relationships.
47.	Although the case being advanced on behalf of the father and paternal grandmother allows each of them the potential to have direct contact with the children, it is right to acknowledge that neither of them have in fact been having any recent direct contact with the children.  The mother, however, has had consistent contact with the children twice each week throughout these proceedings and prior to their removal to foster care, she was their primary carer.  It therefore must be recognised that her relationship with the children is the more significant one out of the three adults.
48.	At the outset of this hearing the children’s Guardian expressed a wish for D and L to remain with Mr. and Mrs. G as long-term foster carers.  Prior to the final hearing commencing the Local Authority had taken the view that Mr. and Mrs. G could be considered as potentially suitable to foster D and L in the long-term and preparations in that regard had begun with an exemption having been sought and granted from Sunderland City Council to permit them to foster more than three children in the long-term.  Mr. Priestly told me that he would have been likely to make this recommendation to the fostering panel and that whilst ultimately the decision as to whether they would be approved and matched as long-term foster carers for these children was not his and no reassurances could have been given, he did tell me, and indeed the fostering worker told me, that his opinion is an influential factor for any fostering panel to consider.  He informed the court during his oral evidence, however, that he had developed significant reservations about this plan as a consequence of it being discovered on the first morning of the hearing that Mr. and Mrs. G had permitted the mother to have unauthorised direct contact with the children on two occasions last year at their static caravan without informing the Local Authority, in or around July of 2017 and around Christmastime 2017.
49.	A further assessment of this situation will need to take place, but his initial view is that this demonstrates such a lack of judgment that he would have significant concerns about their ability to meet the needs of any of the children in the long-term.  This contact took place without the knowledge or agreement of the Local Authority or the Guardian, or indeed the court, and was only discovered as a consequence of the paternal grandmother bringing photographic and video evidence to court on the first day of this hearing and sharing those images with the parties prior to the case commencing.  The paternal grandmother alleges that these images were taken by the mother and sent to the father, and further alleges that the context of them being sent was that the parents had reconciled some time during the course of last year, and indeed she alleges that they remain in a relationship to date, or at least up until as recently as last week.  
50.	The mother denies that she reconciled with the father, although she accepts that they have been in recent contact, at least by text message, with each other.  She denies, however, having any physical contact with the father since March 2017.  She does not deny that she had unauthorised contact with the children, organised by Mr. and Mrs. G, and that she videoed and photographed the children during these contact sessions in the knowledge of Mr. and Mrs. G.  The mother admits posting these images on Facebook and sending them to a friend who is in contact with the father via her friend's partner and the paternal grandmother.  She asserts that this is the mechanism by which they ended up in the hands of the father.  Once the images were shared, Mr. Priestly contacted Mr and Mrs G who admitted that this contact had taken place.
51.	During the course of the oral evidence of the mother and paternal grandmother further allegations were made that the mother had had even greater unauthorised contact than had been initially thought, the mother stating that she had stayed overnight with the children at Mr and Mrs G's static caravan on one occasion shortly before Christmas 2017 and that she had had telephone contact with the children as well.  The paternal grandmother went further and alleged that the mother had told her that she was seeing the children most weekends with Mr. and Mrs. G.  
52.	Clearly these matters need to be explored further with Mr and Mrs G.  I am not in a position to determine the truth of these matters because I have not heard from Mr. and Mrs. G and no one has invited me to do so.  However, the evidence that I have heard paints a very troubling picture.  Even based upon what I am told that Mr. and Mrs. G accept by way of unauthorised contact, it is concerning that they have permitted this contact to take place, it indicates to me that they have taken it upon themselves to arrange additional contact with the mother without informing the Local Authority and without asking its prior permission.  Ultimately, whether they would be approved as long-term foster carers for any of the children is a matter for the fostering panel and is therefore not a matter which the Local Authority can give a commitment to the court about, but Mr. Priestly indicated that, based upon these developments he would be, at this stage, unlikely to support such a proposal.
53.	As a consequence of the evidence that emerged during the hearing the children’s Guardian now considers that a robust investigation into these matters is required.  She accepted when I questioned her in oral evidence that the court cannot have any confidence that Mr. and Mrs. G will be approved as long-term foster carers for any of the children, and indeed it appears to me at this stage on the face of it unlikely that any of the children can remain with them in the long-term.   
54.	That is not to prejudge the outcome of the fostering panel's decision, but it is right to acknowledge that in addition to the evidence I have heard and the provisional views of the social worker, Mr. Priestly, I also have had the advantage of hearing from Mr. Ritchey.  Mr. Ritchey has been Mr and Mrs G's link worker since 2013.  He told me that prior to Mr. and Mrs. G requesting that he be changed as their link worker he had shared with them his reservations about them being matched as long-term carers for the children.  His reservations are documented within his witness statement and principally at the stage that he completed that statement, were based upon their ages.  Mr. G is currently in his sixties, he would be in his eighties by the time that J attains the age of 18 years, and the likelihood in his view is that these children’s complex needs may well continue to manifest themselves in ways that would prove unmanageable to Mr and Mrs G in future.  Since he is to be changed as the link worker it is unclear what the next foster carer’s link worker would recommend but it has to be considered significant that both the current allocated link worker for the foster carers and the current allocated social worker for the children are at this stage expressing serious reservations about whether Mr. and Mrs. G should be matched as long-term carers for the children. 
55.	It follows that if the court were to decide that any or all of the children should be placed in long-term foster care rather than be placed for adoption I have no guarantees that they would be placed with Mr. and Mrs. G in the long-term.
56.	Mr. and Mrs. G remain professional foster carers.  They have made no applications to the court, and whilst they have indicated a willingness to foster the children in the long-term, equally, they have indicated a willingness to prepare them to move on to an adoptive placement, should that plan be approved by the court.
57.	Mr. Ritchey told me in his oral evidence that during his discussions with Mr and Mrs G at the end of 2017 they were clear that they would not wish to adopt the children or be appointed as special guardians for them and that they see themselves as foster carers only.  The court therefore has no jurisdiction to take decisions about whether or not the children should remain placed with Mr and Mrs G and, as I have said, it seems to me that the appropriate course is to consider these applications in the context that I must compare long-term foster care in principle versus adoption in principle rather than having any guarantee that the children could remain where they are.
58.	It is right to acknowledge that Mr and Mrs G are experienced foster carers.  They are already fostering two other children on a long-term basis, an 11-year-old male and a 13-year-old female, and it follows that at the current time they have a total of five children in their care.  It is accepted by all parties that the children are currently thriving in that placement but it is acknowledged that if they are not approved as long-term carers for the children that the children would need to move to another placement or placements.
59.	Mr. and Mrs. G have experience in preparing and assisting children to move on to other long-term fostering placements and to adoptive placements and so it is hoped by the Local Authority and the Guardian that the children could remain in their care whilst long-term placements are found, but of course that will depend on the outcome of the Local Authority’s investigation of the safeguarding concerns that have emerged during the course of this hearing.
60.	Should the court sanction long-term foster care it would permit the children to be placed with a suitably assessed foster carer.  It is right to acknowledge that they have responded positively to the boundaries and structures within their current placement, their needs would be met in a safe and stable environment by a trained foster carer who would be able to work with a range of services to enable them to reach their potential, the children would remain looked after children and therefore would receive ongoing support from the Local Authority.  As Mr. Worrell, counsel for the children, acknowledges and submits, in this case, given the complex needs of the children, it seems likely that the children will require ongoing support from professionals in any event, particularly L and J and that in all likelihood they would need to be supported by a range of professionals throughout their minority. 
61.	However, long-term foster care would not permit the children the opportunity to be claimed by a new family of their own.  Long-term foster care brings with it a higher risk of placement breakdown and disruption than adoption, it involves the children continuing to hold looked after status, which many children can grow to resent as a consequence of the associated stigma of being "in care", with potential restrictions to their day-to-day lives.  As a consequence of the heightened risk of placement breakdown, children can experience greater instability in long-term foster care and there is a risk that they would move around in the care system.  These children are still just six, five and three years old respectively and therefore they face potentially a very lengthy period of time in foster care with those inherent risks of placement breakdown ever present during that time.
62.	When I consider adoption, adoption provides the greatest sense of legal stability and permanence for a child who cannot be placed within the birth family.  It is a placement of last resort because it results in the total severance of a child’s ties with their family of origin, save for limited indirect contact via the post-box system.   The child is given a new family and as a result there is a loss of previous identity and usually a loss of all direct contact with parents and birth family members, as is proposed here. Adoption offers the children the greatest opportunity of a secure placement not only during their minority but for the rest of their lives.  Adoption would allow the children an opportunity to live their lives free from State intervention, or at least the State intervention that long-term foster care would necessitate, and would allow them to be permanently and securely claimed by a family.
63.	Should the sibling group be split, as is proposed by both the Local Authority and the guardian so that the girls are placed together and J be placed separately, the children would be likely to have the opportunity to have continued direct contact if they were all to be adopted, or indeed if they were all to be fostered.  However, if J were to be adopted and the girls fostered, as is recommended by the Guardian, the Local Authority would be unlikely to support continued direct contact between the children due to the risk that it may jeopardise the security of an adoptive placement.  Linda Rankin told the court that in her experience very few adopters would countenance promoting direct contact to siblings who are placed in foster care and having direct contact with their birth family.  The Guardian stated that rarely direct contact can be promoted in this situation but did accept that it is unlikely in this case.
64.	Adoptions are not perfect solutions for children; they can and indeed do break down.  In this case, due to the complex needs of the children and their ages, the search for adoptive placements would need to take place nationally and may not prove to be successful.  Given the complexity of the search it may well result in delays for the children with the added uncertainty that such delays would bring.
65.	I have found this to be a very difficult and finely balanced case.  I am faced with the task of determining what is in the best interests of these children in circumstances in which their current social worker and guardian disagree about what is best for them.
66.	Having heard from the professionals involved I have no doubt that their opinions are genuinely motivated and motivated entirely by what they believe to be in the best interests of each child.  The social worker’s opinions are supported by the independent reviewing officer and indeed the previous independent reviewing officer and also by the agency decision maker.
67.	Mr. Priestly has been the children’s allocated social worker since February 2017.  He is the author of a range of assessments, including the assessments of the siblings which influenced the care planning for the children.  He clearly knows the children well and has given a lot of thought to what is best for them.  I found his evidence to be very careful and considered.  His focus is upon the potential gains for the children should adoptive placements be found for them and should those placements prove successful.  He considers that the potential benefits to the children of being adopted outweigh the losses that they will face.  
68.	His opinion that adoptive placements are achievable for the children is shared by the Adoption Service.  To that end I heard oral evidence from Linda Rankin, adoption social worker.  Miss Rankin has been an adoption worker for 40 years. She confirmed her position orally that she remains cautiously optimistic that all three children can be placed for adoption on the basis that the girls be placed together and J separately.  She advised that a nine month national search was realistic and effectively said that this time period struck the right balance in giving an optimum period of time to search without causing too much delay for the children if adoptive placements prove not to be achievable. 
69.	She reiterated in oral evidence the information contained in her witness statement dated 24th November 2017, that although there is currently a paucity of adopters this is not a novel situation as far as the Adoption Service is concerned and that it only takes one strong family to be available and located at the right time for a match to be made.  She goes on to state in that witness statement:  “There have been few instances in a decade in Newcastle’s Adoption Service history when a child’s plan for adoption has had to be changed because the right resource could not be generated for them”.  I have no reason to question her evidence in this regard.  She is clearly an extremely experienced adoption worker who gave thoughtful and helpful evidence to the court.  
70.	I am satisfied, based upon her evidence, that adoption plans are a realistic option for the court to consider in respect of each child.  The question for me to determine is whether such plans are in the best interests of the children.  
71.	I am extremely reluctant to split this sibling group, particularly in circumstances in which they have always been placed together, and in circumstances in which their needs are currently being met, and met to a high standard, by them all being placed together.  However, I have to consider the children’s individual needs, not just at the current time, but throughout their childhood and indeed throughout their lives.  This is a very difficult decision.
72.	The family, for perfectly natural and understandable reasons, wish for them to be kept together.  I consider that sibling relationships are very significant.  They are potentially the longest and most enduring relationships available to any of us and in circumstances in which L and J share the same chromosomal disorder I can see force in the argument that they should remain placed together to permit each of them to have a greater understanding of their own difficulties and to give them reassurance that they do not face these challenges alone.
73.	However, having carefully considered the now unanimous opinions of the professionals involved in this case, I am satisfied that, sadly, it is necessary for J to be placed separately to his sisters for the following reasons:  
74.	Firstly, it will give J, and indeed L and D together, the best prospect of suitable long-term placements being found which can meet their needs successfully through to adulthood.  The prospect of finding a suitable long-term foster care placement or adoptive placement for all three children together which will meet their needs for the rest of their childhood is a bleak one, on the evidence that I have heard.  I am satisfied that if any of the children are to be given the opportunity to be placed for adoption they will need to be separated in this way.
75.	Secondly, I am not persuaded that Mr. and Mrs. G are likely to be approved as a suitable long-term match for all three children by the fostering panel.  I consider that it is likely, in view of their ages, that J’s needs will overwhelm them in the future and that they will struggle to continue to manage the needs of the full sibling group in the fullness of time.  They already have two other children placed with them on a long-term basis with similar needs to these children and I am deeply troubled by the evidence I have heard that they have permitted the mother to have unauthorised contact with the children, including on her account, overnight contact in their static caravan.  I make no finding in that regard but clearly these issues need to be investigated more fully.  However, on the basis of the evidence I have heard I am not reassured or confident that they would be considered suitable as long-term carers for any of the children and I cannot proceed with confidence that they would be.  The Local Authority is simply not in a position to give me any assurances about this and so on that basis I cannot conclude that the children could remain in their care.  
76.	On the evidence that I have heard, and on the basis of the persuasive submissions I have received from Mr Worrell, on behalf of the guardian I am satisfied that Mr. and Mrs. G are exceptionally skilled and exceptionally experienced foster carers.  Having heard the evidence in its totality I consider that the likelihood of finding another long-term foster care placement that could cater for these children’s needs not just now, but all the way through their minority successfully, is unlikely to be found.
77.	I have heard evidence from Mr. Ritchey, who quite apart from the issue of unauthorised contact expressed significant reservations about supporting Mr. and Mrs. G as long-term carers for all three children in any assessment he may have completed for the fostering panel.  As I have acknowledged, he had been Mr and Mrs G's link worker for four-and-half-years, he has had a high level of contact with them throughout that time and therefore his opinion in that regard is of influence in my decision-making.  I found him to be a careful and reliable witness and I found him to have the utmost respect for Mr. and Mrs. G.  Quite apart from any issue of unauthorised contact, he expressed what I consider to be understandable reservations about their no doubt well-intentioned request to care for these children in the long-term.
78.	I consider it no coincidence that following him sharing his views with them in this regard they asked for a change of link worker.  I accept that he will not now be working towards completing a report for the fostering panel or attending that panel but Mr. Priestly will be, on behalf of the children and therefore I expect that all of these reservations will be shared with the panel, together with concerns about unauthorised contact.
79.	In considering whether to sanction long-term foster care for all or any of the children I therefore cannot be satisfied that I am approving a plan which would enable any or all of them to continue to remain placed where they are.  Long-term foster care may well result in the children moving placements.  On the evidence that I have from both the fostering team and the adoption team, other than Mr and Mrs G it seems to me unlikely on balance, that another long-term foster care placement could be found which would be capable of meeting the needs of all three children in the long-term and it seems to me extremely unlikely that adopters could be found who would be able to do so.  Therefore, if the Gs are not approved it seems to me, on balance, likely that the children would need to be split in any event due to a lack of available placements.
80.	Thirdly, I am satisfied on the basis of the evidence I have read and heard that it is likely that J will continue to be a child who presents any carer with considerable challenges and that he will need an exceptionally high level of care throughout his childhood and potentially additional support into adulthood.  I consider that it is not in his best interests, or indeed in the best interests of his sisters, that his carers should attempt to meet his needs alongside those of L and D.  I consider that to attempt to do so presents a high risk of placement breakdown for one or more of the children in the future.  I am satisfied that it is likely that J’s needs will eclipse those of his sisters in placement, which will be very much to the detriment of the girls.
81.	Fourthly, I have come to the conclusion that for these children their placements must take priority above their need to continue to be brought up as a sibling group together.  I am persuaded that each of them require, first and foremost, to have carers who are capable of meeting their individual needs throughout their childhood and, sadly, that that could only be properly achieved if they are to be separated in the way proposed by the Local Authority and supported by the children’s guardian.  I am grateful to Mr. Priestly for his detailed sibling assessments in this regard and I rely upon his analysis and conclusions.
82.	For those reasons, I am satisfied that the complex needs of these children demand that they are separated and that J will need to placed separately to his sisters.
83.	Turning to consider which placement option is in J’s best interests I am in no doubt that in light of his age an adoptive placement is the only option that will give him the committed and stable family life that he needs and deserves.  I am satisfied that nothing but adoption will do for him.  He is still below the age of four years old, and the prospect of him entering long-term foster care at such an age and spending the next fourteen or more years in foster care is not an attractive one.
84.	I accept and acknowledge that J will undoubtedly suffer a degree of emotional harm as a result of losing an opportunity to have relationships with his birth family, especially his mother, and that this will be a lifelong enduring loss.  However, in my judgment, his need to be given a safe, stable and settled home with committed carers who are family to him, not simply professional carers, outweigh these losses in circumstances in which the evidence before the court suggests that his relationship with his mother is not as strong as the one enjoyed between the girls and the mother and that he has no significant ongoing relationship with his father or paternal grandmother.  The evidence before the court persuades me that it is likely that J will require exceptionally skilled, energetic and committed carers not just throughout his childhood but into adulthood.   Adoption will give him the best opportunity of having a family who can support him throughout his life to meet his potential.
85.	When considering which is the best long-term option for J I acknowledge that adoption is by no means the perfect solution.  It brings with it the loss of all contact with birth parents and a change of identity, such that all ties to the natural family are removed.  Adoptions can and do break down.  A move to an adoptive placement will require J to sever his attachments from his birth family.  Adoption can impact upon a child’s emotional wellbeing and self-esteem during their childhood and into adulthood.  It can result in feelings of rejection from both family and resentment towards adoptive carers.
86.	However, in this case, due to his age, his complex needs and the amount of time since he has been living with the mother and having contact with his paternal family, the significance of these relationships for him are reduced.  He does have a strong relationship with Mr. and Mrs. G, particularly Mr. G.  However, for the reasons I have already explained, I have no confidence that he can remain in their care.  If that is the case, at best he could hope to have continued contact with them.  It may be that such contact could still be supported by any adopters who are found for him, but even if it cannot, I am of the view that securing an adoptive placement for him should take priority above ongoing contact.  Adoption is the only placement option outside of the birth family which allows a child to have true permanency in the legal and social sense of the word.  J will be able to develop attachments to new parents and that would enable him to be provided with emotional security free from ongoing statutory involvement.
87.	I am satisfied when I consider what is in J’s best interests that nothing but adoption will do for him.  I recognise that the search for an adoptive placement will not be a straightforward one but accept Miss Rankin’s evidence that a nine month search is an appropriate one.  I share her cautious optimism that adopters can be found for him and I consider that he stands a good chance of an adoptive placement being successful providing that the matching process is carefully managed and that any prospective adopters are fully informed about the task that lies ahead of them.
88.	To that end I am reassured that Mr. Priestly will remain his allocated social worker throughout the search for an adoptive placement and that he will assist in ensuring that any prospective adopters are fully informed about the compLty of J’s needs.
89.	Having considered the Local Authority’s care plan in respect of J I consider that the contact proposals are appropriate for him and that it is appropriate for his contact with the mother to reduce to take place six times per year pending an adoptive placement being found.  If an adoptive placement is not found I consider that this is a realistic level of contact which can be maintained in the long-term, subject to review under the looked after child procedures, which will mean that it can of course be increased or reduced in the future in accordance with his needs.  It offers him a gradual reduction in contact, which in my view will best assist and prepare him to move on to a new long-term placement.  Should an adoptive placement be found, I consider that indirect contact via the post-box system on an annual basis will ensure that the identity of J’s placement is protected and that he is given the best chance of a successful adoption.  I consider that such indirect contact should be promoted for both the mother and the paternal grandmother to enable him to retain links to both sides of his birth family.  This will be an important aspect of his life story and I accept and agree with the oral evidence of the guardian in this regard. 
90.	I therefore make a care order in respect of J in favour of the Local Authority approving the care plan for adoption.
91.	As far as the care plans are concerned for L and D I accept the professional evidence of the Local Authority and the guardian that these are children who should remain placed together, irrespective of whether they are to be fostered or adopted.  It is clearly in their best interests to continue to be placed together as siblings and I am satisfied that their needs are such that they can be successfully cared for within the same placement.
92.	I have given anxious consideration as to whether L and D should be given the opportunity to have adoptive placements found for them.  There are considerable advantages to such an outcome, not least the prospect of continued direct contact to J, which could be arranged between respective sets of adoptive carers.  If an adoptive placement could be found for them and if that placement were to be successful for the girls, they would enjoy all of the benefits that the permanence and security of such a placement would bring.
93.	I am mindful of the evidence that suggests that finding a long-term foster care placement locally for the children may not be a straightforward one in light of their needs, and that the potential delay for these children inherent in any such plan could in many ways mirror the delays inherent in an adoptive search.  However, on balance, I am persuaded by the clear and cogent analysis of the children’s guardian, whose opinion was unwavering throughout her oral evidence.  Miss Grundy is an experienced guardian who gave impressive and persuasive evidence.  I accept her opinion that for these two children, adoption would not be in their best interests. 
94.	I have concluded that the most appropriate care plan for them is to be placed together in long-term foster care for the following reasons:   
95.	Firstly, I accept Miss Grundy’s evidence that they have a strong attachment to the mother and therefore a strong sense of identity.  I consider that in these circumstances and given their ages it is unlikely that they will be able to be successfully placed with any adopters who may be found and matched for them and there is a real risk of them rejecting an adoptive placement.  
96.	Secondly, should they be placed for adoption and should that placement break down they would, in my view, suffer significant emotional harm which could potentially be lifelong.  I consider that the risks of placement breakdown for these children is a high one, not because of any challenging behaviour on their part but because, in my judgment, they have such a keenly developed sense of identity and such a clear and obvious attachment to their mother.  I consider that it is likely that these children will not cope well with the severing of all ties to their birth family.  They have clear recollections of their paternal grandmother and they want to see her.  They have a close and affectionate relationship with the mother who has attended contact consistently and frequently throughout these proceedings.  I do not consider that it is in their best interests to lose these relationships.
97.	Thirdly, I am satisfied that these are anxious children, whose anxieties manifest themselves physically and who require a great deal of reassurance.  It seems to me likely that J will be successfully adopted and that they therefore will experience the loss of a sibling.  It also seems to me likely that they will need to move placements from the care of Mr. and Mrs. G who they have positive attachments to.   I am satisfied that they will find these changes difficult to cope with and that, in order to assist them, they will require consistency in other aspects of their lives.  The continuation of the relationship with their mother, and I hope with Mr. and Mrs. G, through direct contact and the facilitation of contact with the paternal grandmother will become ever more important to them if they are to successfully navigate these changes.  I am satisfied that these are very significant relationships to them which should be permitted to continue and which can only continue in a meaningful way if the children are to be placed locally in long-term foster care.
98.	Fourthly, when I consider the challenges inherent in, not only finding an adoptive placement for these children, but of then preparing them for such a change, which is unlikely to be straightforward given their complex needs and anxieties, I consider that the added uncertainty this process will bring to them is not in their best interests.  I agree with the Guardian that these are anxious children who need to be reassured what the long-term plan is to be for them without delay.  In approving a long-term foster care arrangement for them I consider that this allows the children to be told now that they will continue to see their mother, that they will continue to see Mr. and Mrs. G, albeit that it may only be in the context of contact, that they will have the opportunity to see the paternal grandmother if they wish to do so and that they will remain living in this local area.
99.	Given, in particular, L’s need for constant reassurance, I consider that the sooner they can be given these assurances the better, and that having up to a year of further uncertainty is not in their best interests.  I say a year because it seems to me likely that an adoptive search would be a lengthy one and that only after a prospective match would be found would preparation work be undertaken for the girls.  I consider that, given their individual needs and anxieties, that could take some time.
100.	On the other hand, the continued uncertainty must also be seen in the context of their individual needs and the impact upon them of it, so that if an adoptive placement were not to be found at the end of a lengthy search, a long-term foster care placement would then need to be found and it seems to me that in totality a realistic timescale would be about a year for them to reach a settled and permanent placement.  I consider that a further year of anxiety in the context of this case, is not in their best interests.  This litigation has already been going on for far too long.
101.	In considering contact, I consider that mother’s contact with L and D should reduce to take place six times each year in the school holidays but I do consider that once J is adopted it will allow the opportunity for these children to have contact with her in the community and for periods of time which match the activity proposed, as has been recommended by the guardian.  Such contact should be continually monitored under the auspices of care orders using the looked after child procedures.  The frequency of this contact will permit the children to settle into long-term foster care and give them a clear message that they will not be returning home to live with their mother.  However, should the girls not cope well with such a reduction then an increase could be considered.  At this stage though, I am persuaded to accept the opinions of the social worker and the guardian that the level of contact of six times a year is appropriate as a baseline.
102.	I agree with the guardian that it is disappointing that the paternal grandmother has not been afforded a greater level of contact with the children during these proceedings than she has.  I consider that indirect contact between her and the girls should be promoted by the Local Authority not less than once a month and as frequently as fortnightly, at least in the interim, to re-establish their relationship and I consider that that should be implemented without delay with a view to direct contact hopefully taking place in the future.  I am satisfied that the relationship between the girls and the paternal grandmother should be promoted by this Local Authority.
103.	I am satisfied, having listened to the evidence of the mother, the paternal grandmother and the guardian that this grandmother has clearly played a significant role in the children’s lives historically and I accept the guardian’s evidence that they wish to see her.
104.	I therefore invite the Local Authority to file amended care plans for L and D setting out the contact arrangements that I have determined and providing for them to be placed together in long-term foster care.  Should the Local Authority agree to that course, then I would approve those care plans and make care orders in respect of L and D but I refuse to grant placement orders in respect of those two children.
105.	Turning to consider the Local Authority’s application for a placement order in respect of J.  In considering whether to make a placement order I must consider not only what is in J’s best interests during his minority but also what is in his best interests throughout his life.  Having already concluded that nothing but adoption will do for him, a placement order is the order which provides the Local Authority with the legal permission required to put the care plan that I have already approved into effect.  I am clear that it is in J’s best interests throughout his life to be adopted and thereby claimed not only throughout his childhood but also into adulthood.
106.	It seems to me there is a pressing need for plans to be implemented for J without delay.  He is already almost four years old.  I have come to the firm conclusion that the only plan which meets his needs is one of adoption and that that plan should be implemented now.  Consequently, I have no hesitation in concluding that his welfare requires me to dispense with each parent's consent and I make a placement order in respect of him.
------