Care and Placement Proceedings – Direct Contact Post Adoption and Dismissal of Placement Order Application

1. This is the final hearing of the local authority’s application for care orders in respect of M and C. The local authority is also seeking placement orders. The children are represented through their guardian, Samantha Moore, and she supports the applications as being in the children’s best interests. The children’s parents are referred to as Mother and Father. They both oppose the making of placement orders. Mother no longer opposes the making of care orders. Father would have supported the children returning to their mother’s care but he has accepted her decision in relation to that. Father is very ill. He attended the first day of the hearing in person and then attended remotely thereafter. He has advanced cancer and is receiving palliative care. His GP has advised that his life expectancy will be measured in months rather than years. This final hearing was adjourned last year because of his health and because the guardian was unable to attend but I was not asked to adjourn it again this week. Father may not cope with listening to this judgment so I circulated a written judgment.

2. The proceedings were commenced in March last year. I found that the threshold for the making of interim orders and the high test for separation were met and the children were placed in foster care under Interim Care Orders. The case now comes before me for an adjourned final hearing. I have read the bundle which includes parenting assessments and a psychological assessment addressing the risks from Father in particular and Mother’s ability to keep the children safe. As the issues had narrowed to whether I should make placement orders, I was asked to deal with the case on submissions. I expressed reservations about the local authority’s case so I was asked to hear some oral evidence. As the hearing progressed, the guardian’s position changed and then the local authority revised its position but further time was needed for amended care plans because it was not clear what their contact proposals actually are now. Mother, in particular, is vulnerable and the local authority’s inability to sort out its case has been very difficult for her. She plainly loves her children and she made the brave decision not to oppose care orders, then she had to sit and listen to a plan being reconsidered as we went along. Had the local authority dealt with everything properly, this hearing would have been shorter and less harrowing for these parents. The local authority needed more time to sort out their care plan at the conclusion of the evidence. Then they needed further time after closing submissions. That is unacceptable.

3. The threshold criteria are clearly met but were badly pleaded. The neglect is understated. The advocates agreed a shorter document and I was asked to resolve one area of dispute and to decide whether the facts admitted by father did cross the threshold. Mother accepts they did. The background

4. M is 7 and C is 3. There were proceedings in 2019 in relation to M. The local authority became involved whilst mother was pregnant because of father’s criminal history which included a conviction for sexual activity with a child under 16 for which he was sentenced to 4 ½ years in prison. Given the risk he posed to children, a psychological assessment for those proceedings recommended that any contact be supervised. Mother’s relationship history showed vulnerabilities and she was using alcohol in a maladaptive way but she had the support of her parents and was not living with Father. It was agreed that Father would not have unsupervised contact and the proceedings concluded with an order for M to live with Mother. I know from the chronology that the parents’ relationship continued, C was born in 2022, despite extensive work mother did not accept the risk father posed, M told the school that father was staying overnight, mother was drinking to excess and the children were exposed to her poor mental health and aggressive outbursts. She was not honest about the amount of time father was staying at the home or about her drinking. M told the guardian she wanted her mum to stop shouting. C was non communicative. The health visitor’s records show concerns about mother’s capacity to meet the children’s needs and C not reaching his developmental milestones. The parents would not follow the safety plan. Mother said she felt she was being made to choose between her husband and her children and that was unfair. She did not understand the risks. Sadly, nothing was likely to change.

5. It is right to record that there were also positives in the health visitor’s statement including the observations of Mother being warm and responsive in her care of both children. That is relevant when I consider the care plan. Mother brought to court an album of photographs of the children and they look delightful. They were plainly enjoying their time with their parents when the pictures were taken. The love these parents have for their children is clear. Threshold

6. The background of harm the children were exposed to is clear from the agreed final threshold document which sets out t he emotional harm and neglect and there was a risk of sexual harm. The Local Authority set out a number of facts in support and these facts are agreed:-

1. There were previous proceedings in 2019 under case number PE19C00123 for M. The threshold was established on the basis that M was likely to suffer significant physical and sexual harm and neglect. The proceedings concluded with a Supervision Order which has since expired. The court ordered at the end of the previous proceedings that contact between M and her father should be supervised at all times by a third party (ie not the mother)

2. The 2nd Respondent has a conviction from 2013 for sexual activity with a child under s.91(1) (a) Sexual Offence Act 2003 . The 1 st Respondent was aware of this.

3. The 1 st Respondent admits drinking alcohol to excess and using cocaine and accepts that the children have been exposed to this and this will have impacted on her care of the children.

4. The 1 st Respondent accepts that she has a history of poor mental health.

5. The 1 st Respondent has a clear belief that the 2 nd Respondent poses no threat and so is not well placed psychologically to be protective and has sustained her relationship despite previously having said she will separate. (E61, E62, E81)

6. The drug tests show that the father was using cocaine from mid December 2024 to the start of April 2025.

7. The father was living with the family and if he was not living there permanently, he was spending increasing amounts of time there without the presence of a third party. (C14, C20, C44, F23, F31, F35)

8. The father’s risk of reoffending is considered high by the police monitoring service (MOSOVO -monitoring of sexual offenders and violent offenders) based on the information given to them at the time.

9. The father accepts the fact of his conviction but does not accept his culpability and maintains that he is not a risk to anyone.

10. Dr Dowd has opined that: a. The father’s statistical risk of sexual reoffending is low risk: low risk does not mean no risk E66 b. There is an elevated need for preventative measures to protect the children from harm and future assessment would be needed as M approaches adolescence (E55, E67, E69). c. The father presents with high levels of social desirability and it is unlikely that any concerning developments in terms of his life functioning would be voluntarily discussed or disclosed by him meaning that opportunities to manage risk would be compromised. E67 d. Father is a medium risk for violence and may experience psychological difficulties responding to the children as they become older and more challenging e. The 2 nd Respondent poses a risk to M’s peer group and if he were to abuse them this would cause emotional harm to M (E67). f. The father lacks insight into the impact of his offending history on the children. E66

7. Paragraph 11 was not well drafted. It relates to the agreement at the end of the 2019 proceedings that contact would continue to be supervised by a third party which the local authority says was breached when mother took over supervising contact between the children and their father herself and the parents then refused at the ICPC on 30.01.25 to agree that contact would be supervised by a third party. Mother accepts that, father does not. Father was present and represented when that order was made. It clearly records as a recital that father’s contact would be supervised at all times by a third party, there is no dispute that by 2024 father was caring for the children alone, he says that was allowed by the police but, even when he was told by the local authority that it was not, he refused to accept that. I have the evidence of the social worker and the minutes of the meeting and I am satisfied that father knew but refused to comply with Judge Yelton’s order. That added to the risk of harm to the children.

8. The social work evidence and the statements from the parents tell me that that father was spending time alone with the children, M was told not to talk about him which is harmful to her and mother minimised the risks. That is in addition to the emotional harm and neglect described in the social work evidence from the drug and alcohol misuse, the aggressive outbursts and poor mental health. In January of last year, mother told the social worker she had been drinking 2 to 3 bottles of wine a day and the children’s basic care needs were being neglected. To mother’s credit, she accepts the threshold. Father’s failure to do so and his continuing minimization of the history is evidence of his lack of insight. The threshold are plainly met. The welfare of the children

9. The threshold being met, I have to decide what orders are in the children’s best interests. The children’s welfare is the court’s paramount consideration. I have regard to the welfare checklist in the Children Act 1989 , that is (a)the ascertainable wishes and feelings of the children concerned (considered in the light of their age and understanding); (b)their physical, emotional and educational needs; (c)the likely effect on them of any change in their circumstances; (d)their age, sex, background and any characteristics of theirs which the court considers relevant; (e)any harm which they have suffered or are at risk of suffering; (f)how capable each of their parents, and any other person in relation to whom the court considers the question to be relevant, is of meeting their needs; (g)the range of powers available to the court in these proceedings.

10. In this case the local authority is also seeking placement orders therefore I have regard to the additional factors in the welfare checklist in the Adoption and Children Act 2002 , in particular in this case to the likely effect on the children (throughout their lives) of having ceased to be a member of the original family and become an adopted person and the relationship which each child has with their parents, including the likelihood of that relationship continuing and the value to the children of it doing so, the ability of the parents to provide the children with a secure environment in which they can develop, and otherwise to meet their needs, and the wishes and feelings of the parents, regarding the children. My paramount consideration is the children’s welfare throughout their lives.

11. In addition to the factors in the welfare checklists, I have regard to the parties’ Article 8 rights to respect for their private and family life and I should only interfere with those rights if it is necessary and proportionate. I have to consider whether any less interventionist order would meet the children’s needs and whether good enough care could be provided with such assistance and support as could be offered. In this case, I am being asked by the parents to find that long term foster care with contact would be in the children’s best interests. The local authority was proposing letter box contact post adoption.

12. I have to weigh up the advantages and disadvantages of the realistic options before the court and make a global and holistic evaluation of the children’s welfare which takes into account all the negatives and all the positives of each option. I must not have a linear approach to the options. I cannot dispense with a parent’s consent to a placement order unless I am satisfied that the welfare of the children requires it; that connotes an imperative. Re B [2013] UKSC 33 and other cases remind me that placement orders are a last resort and should only be made where nothing else will do. That is not a shortcut. It is a reminder of the draconian nature of placement orders.

13. In this case the only realistic options are long term foster care or adoption. There is no-one else in the family able to care for the children. The parenting assessment of mother is negative because of her substance misuse and failure to address her mental health difficulties as well as in relation to her ability to prioritise the children’s safety over her relationship with father. The report of Dr Dowd refers to her personality traits and some of the work she would need to do. The next few months are clearly going to be very difficult for both parents. Mother is going to be caring for father. It is to Mother’s credit that she has accepted that the children cannot return to her care. She thinks foster care and ongoing contact would be better for the children than adoption and no contact. No-one is suggesting the children could be placed in their father’s care, even if his health were better.

14. The parents have not given oral evidence. I know and understand their position. I have considered the written evidence and I have heard oral evidence from Najeeb Rehman in the family finding team; from Kate Shaw, the allocated social worker; and from the guardian, Samantha Moore. I have had helpful submissions from all of the advocates. At the conclusion of the evidence, the local authority asked for time to go back to the Agency Decision Maker and to consider the guardian’s changed position in relation to contact and the concerns about the children being separated if an adoptive placement together is not found. Their position on post adoption contact was not clear even after submissions so I had to adjourn for another week.

15. Before closing submissions, the local authority said it “ agrees to do a risk assessment of the mother for the purposes of direct contact. D irect contact will be managed by the CIC team in the early days of placement. The CIC team will stay involved with the children for at least 6 months and it can be up to two years depending how long it takes for adopters to apply for an adoption order. • The CIC team can do a full risk assessment of direct contact when it comes to placement. Thereafter the CIC team can support the adopters to make contact safe and meaningful and make recommendations based on the risk assessment. Direct contact would have some level of oversight from the CIC team until they closed the case, by which time the adopters will hopefully feel upskilled and confident. • The Regional Adoption Agency does not have a resource for overseeing post adoption contact.

16. That was not a proposal for direct contact post adoption; the oversight would only last until an adoption. I now have revised care plans. The local authority still says it has no resource to support post adoption contact.

17. I will refer to M’s care plan but C’s is the same. The care plans now propose a reduction to monthly contact until a placement is found. I approve that. Upon placement, the local authority would recommend that the children see their mother twice a year, at the beginning of the Easter holidays and during October half-term for a minimum of 3 hours, so that there is time for the children to complete an activity and have a meal with Mother. My view is that 3 times a year, in each of the long school holidays would be the right level for the children but my real concern is the practical arrangements. This will be subject to a risk assessment. The care plan says this:- “Section 2.5.5 The Local Authority would recommend that before any direct contact is organised between the children and Mother, that the Children in Care team facilitate a ‘Contact Agreement Meeting’, where the adoptive parents, Mother and the adopters can have a discussion and create a plan to ensure that the time that the children spend with their mother is as positive for them as possible. 2.5.6 The Local Authority will oversee this contact whilst the children remain Children in Care. The Local Authority can offer support and advice regarding all aspects of this contact with Mother to adopters and Mother. 2.5.7 The Local Authority recommend that Father has letterbox contact with the children twice a year. The Local Authority is not recommending direct contact for Father due to his likelihood of presenting as hostile and intimidating to the adopters. 2.5.8 The Local Authority are not recommending any contact between M and C as they will only be placed in a home together.”

18. The other parties have responded to the local authority’s latest care plans. There is a typing error as both plans refer to M. The guardian says she understands that the contact will be risk assessed and managed by the Child In Care Team whilst the children remain open to them. She anticipates that this role would be assumed by post adoption support services once the children are no longer children in care and requests confirmation of the same from the Local Authority. If the Local Authority cannot be definitive at this stage, she would like an assurance from the Local Authority that this role will not fall to any prospective adopters. I think she is still being optimistic because the local authority is still not going to support the practical arrangements for post adoption contact. I cannot keep asking. They have been given repeated opportunities to offer to meet the children’s needs. If there is no plan to support the contact or arrange supervision, the risk assessment will be negative. Adopters cannot be expected to make arrangements directly with mother, especially if father is still living with her. The local authority would have to support it on a practical level. They won’t. The future contact is one of the reasons why long term foster care may be better for the children.

19. I know that long-term foster care for young children, in particular, is a precarious legal framework. Mrs Justice Pauffley summarised the disadvantages in Re LRP. Foster placements, long or short term, do not provide legal security. They can and often do come to an end. Children in long-term foster care may find themselves moved from one home to another sometimes for seemingly inexplicable reasons. Long-term foster parents are not expected to be fully committed to a child in the same way as adoptive parents, the child does not have the same and enduring sense of belonging within a family as does a child who has been adopted. A long-term foster child cannot count on the permanency, predictability and enduring quality of his placement as can a child who has been adopted. If the children cannot be cared for by their parents, they are entitled to a private and family life with carers committed to them and assessed as able to meet their needs. For C at the age of 3, I have that very much in mind but for M, at the age of 7, the loss of her mother is an important factor which I do not think the local authority and the guardian gave sufficient weight to. Sadly, the children are going to lose their father in any event so I hope he will forgive me if this judgment focuses on the children’s mother.

20. The local authority and the guardian did not, in my judgment, adequately look at the disadvantages of adoption or the benefits of contact for M. The local authority did not consider post adoption contact and they did not adequately obtain M’s wishes and feelings. The 20 th January 2026 care plan did not even mention considering contact; there is no analysis of the benefits of it or of M’s wishes and feelings. The guardian said in her analysis that she could not recommend ongoing direct contact because of the potential for the parents to disrupt or interfere with the children’s future placement but she conceded in her oral evidence that her reason related to father and she had not considered mother separately. Mother has shown real commitment to contact, she became aware of the details of M’s school but she had done nothing to undermine the foster placement and I have no evidence that she would undermine an adoptive placement either. The 12 th February revised care plan does not adequately reflect the strength of M’s wishes and feelings and does not say that it is accepted that ongoing contact is in the children’s interests.

21. If the children remain in long term foster care, the local authority proposes contact with mother 6 times a year. There would be a gradual reduction. For M, the local authority reached the position that contact twice a year with mother would be in the children’s interests if they are adopted. My view is that 3 times a year would be better for them. It would not disrupt their school routines but they would know that it is to take place in each school holiday and it would support M feeling settled if she knows that. The children have a strong sibling relationship and should attend contact together. For father, if he remained well, I cannot see that level of contact being in the children’s interests. His attitude to the local authority, his lack of insight into the way his behaviour affected the children, his insistence that the children should travel to him for contact despite the long journey, the need for M to take a day off school, her travel sickness and anxiety, are all part of his inability to consider the children’s welfare. He would not work with the local authority or accept advice and he would be likely to undermine the placement. He tried to get M to say in contact that the local authority made her say her mother shouted at home. He tried to intimidate the previous and present social worker, he referred to her as a “cunt” whilst waiting outside court, and during her evidence it was clear that he was being abusive despite the fact the CVP was muted. His health is no excuse. His focus on himself is nothing new. To her credit, the social worker rose above it but she should not have to.

22. In considering the welfare checklists, I have regard to the harm the children have suffered and are at risk of suffering. The parents minimise it but M has described more than once that her parents would shout at each other and how upset she was, she has described her mother shouting at her and having to get her own breakfast and get her mother up to take her to school. She had to keep quiet about the time her father was spending in the family home. I know that C was not meeting his developmental milestones at home but he has progressed very well in foster care. When I look at the history, the support that was put in place and the lack of change, it is clear that the parents are not capable of meeting the children’s needs and they would suffer further harm if they returned home. The children have that background of harm and they need stable and consistent care going forward. They will be with carers assessed as able to meet their needs either as foster carers or prospective adopters.

23. In her updating statement, Ms Shaw says that both children appear extremely happy and settled in their foster placement. It is currently a short term placement but I am told that it may be possible for them to remain there so they would not have a change in their circumstances and that would give them a degree of permanency. Some foster placements do last and provide security. This placement does meet their needs. The children’s mother has not undermined it.

24. There is no dispute that the children should remain together. The plan is to search for an adoptive placement for a year, given M’s age. There is a risk of them being separated if a placement together is not found but a placement for C alone could be found. I am not suggesting that there would be any bad faith on behalf of the local authority but it does happen as a result of the way the process works. I heard evidence from the family finder about adoption. His statements tell me of the limited number of adopters for the children together. In his oral evidence, Mr Rehman was asked how post adoption contact would affect the search. He said that adopters are being trained to understand how important it is for a child’s identity to have contact where possible. They can look for adopters who are open to direct contact, he does not see a drop in numbers when he adds in direct contact to his search criteria. If they are told only to look for adopters who will take both children together, they can do that. In the last 24 months, they have placed 6 groups of children where one was 6 or older so it is achievable. The difficulty is, as he explained, that if they can’t place an older child but could place a younger one, they go back to the local authority to decide on whether they should look just for the younger child. This court cannot prevent that.

25. Ms Shaw provided a sibling assessment on the recommendation of the guardian last June. That assessment tells me of the strength of the sibling relationship and that the children should not be separated. In her analysis, the guardian noted M’s strong familial identity bond, and she said that the children “enjoyed safe, consistent, predictable and enjoyable family times with their mother and with their father.” She noted the positive interactions and that the parents remain focussed on the children. She thought M may struggle to invest in an alternate placement family and said that consideration would need to be given to the permanency options for C if M was unable to be matched with adoptive carers or in the unlikely event that an adopted placement were to break down. She commented on the very strong sibling relationship. Having read and heard the evidence, my view is that contact is likely to help M to be settled because the loss of contact is the reason she gives for not wanting to be adopted. That now seems to be accepted. But the guardian rightly flagged up the possible separation of the siblings if M could not be placed or did not settle.

26. In the sibling assessment, the social worker looks at the positive and negative aspects of the sibling relationship and says this in her analysis and recommendations:- “8.2 If the decision is made that the children cannot safely return to the care of their mother or another family member, it is my recommendation that M and C remain in a placement together for the duration of their childhood, ideally in an adoptive placement but in the event that this is not possible, in a long-term foster placement, where their identity as siblings, with all the benefits and disagreements that this brings, can be promoted positively and daily. M and C would be able to retain their identity as siblings in an age-appropriate way, where they can grow up together. 8.3 The alternative ‘plan B’ would be that M would remain in long-term foster care, and C would be placed for adoption. This would mean that the children would be in separate placements, meaning that they would not have the chance for the daily interaction which is normal for them. This would have a huge impact on their identity as a pair, and on their individual identities as ‘brother / sister of’. I would worry about the impact on M and C were they to have different family identities to each other. Regular sibling contact would not mitigate this impact as realistically this cannot replicate the daily rhythm of M and C’s relationship with each other. There is also the consideration of what this would mean for their direct contact with parents, which would remain in place in long-term fostering and not with adoption. Different care plans for the children is likely to bring huge confusion to them, both now and in the future, and this is an unnecessary emotional impact for them.”

27. In her final analysis 2 weeks ago, the guardian agrees that “the sibling relationship between M and C is so significant that they should not be separated in any future placement.” No thought had been given as to how that could be avoided. There were no assurances in the care plans or the ADM’s decision. If the family finding team cannot find a placement for the children together, they could go back to the local authority and propose a placement for C, then the children could be separated. The ADM has looked at the updating evidence and she said on 9 th February – “Should efforts to find suitable adopters for the siblings together not be successful, than a change of plan is to be requested to ADM with views from relevant parties”. There is not a commitment to the children being together. I have had to raise it on behalf of the children. I will come back to that.

28. When it came to her oral evidence, the guardian had given it more thought. She will write to the Independent Reviewing Officer about the importance of the children being together. The amended care plans attempt to deal with the risk identified by the family finder if a placement together is not found. It now says:- “Section 1.13 On 10/02/26 it was confirmed that the ADM supports a plan for M and C to be placed for adoption together. This decision also records that should efforts to find suitable adopters for the siblings together not be successful, then a change of plan is to be requested to ADM with views from relevant parties. 1.14 The Local Authority would therefore only place M and C together, so that they can continue and experience their sibling bond. 1.15 The Local Authority would recommend that the search for an adoptive placement for the siblings should be limited to 12 months, at which point the plan should change to seek a long-term foster placement together.”

29. Given M’s age and the draconian nature of adoption without direct contact, I was concerned by the social worker’s failure to consider M’s wishes and feelings and the benefits of contact with her mother. In her final evidence last July, she said that M wished to know when she was going home and when she was next seeing her mummy. She had been tearful when discussing her parents with the social worker and she said they are ‘perfect’. Ms Shaw says in her statement that M is a very determined child who knows her own mind and has a strong independent streak. Last May, she said she wanted to go home. There was no analysis of the loss for M of her relationship with her mother. The guardian thought the social worker should have discussed it with M. So did I.

30. In her 20 th January statement, the social worker still had not properly discussed it with her. She tells me how well settled the children are now, that has taken longer for M. M requested that she ask the judge if she could stay at her foster carers and return to her parents as well, doing ‘sleepovers’ between the two. There is no analysis of the pros and cons of contact, no consideration of how hard it will be for M to move again, and no plan for help or support to cope with the loss. Both the social worker and the guardian report on mother’s commitment to contact and say that contact is a positive experience for the children.

31. In her 29 th January analysis, the guardian says at paragraph 19 that:- “M is now 7 years old and continues to be a very communicative, engaging, intelligent little girl. C is 3 years and 3 months old and is thriving in his current placement, he is a rumbunctious little boy who loves playing outside, is endearing and engaging and whose speech is developing well.” In the section on adoption, she says “M has a strong sense of familial identity. She considers that her parents are ‘perfect’ and seeks a return to her mother’s care. She does not consider that she has been harmed other than repeatedly requesting that her mother doesn’t ‘shout at her’ anymore. At 7 years old, M is at the upper end of adoption consideration. It is unclear whether she would accept adoptive parents and/or an alternate family. It is possible that she will reject this plan of permanence. If M were to reject an alternate family, it would impact C’s chances of identifying and remaining in an adoptive placement.” “I consider that long-term foster care does not meet the needs of C (in particular) and therefore ‘will not do’ as a long-term option. Similarly, it is not an ideal solution for M. As the sibling dynamic is so overwhelmingly positive, the Local Authority considers that the children must stay together and I agree with this position. “ “On balance, I consider that adoption is the only realistic option for such young children if they are not able to return to their birth family but consider that this may be challenging and I would support the plan being time-limited and robustly reviewed at Child in Care reviews.”

32. I fully understand the reasons for supporting adoption, especially for C but not enough consideration has been given to M’s need for contact. Unless she has contact, I do not think she will invest in a placement and then that could lead on to the children being separated which everyone agrees would not be in either child’s interests. Alternatively, they could return to foster care together but to a new foster placement. That would be a further unnecessary and damaging change of circumstances.

33. In her oral evidence, Ms Shaw said that the children “continue to thrive and are really settled now. There is a possibility they could stay there in the longer term. M would need a lot of transition work… she has always presented as loyal to her mum. She sees her mum in family time and is reassured she is well… it is possible she will never call adopters mum and dad. That does not mean she would not accept them; she has totally accepted the current carers. She is comfortable where she is.” I am concerned that she still had not told M she won’t see her parents again. Ms Shaw does not think she should discuss it in case it does not happen but the court has to take into account a child’s wishes and feelings. Then she said that if M does not want to be adopted, her wishes and feelings will be taken into account. That is the wrong time to consider them. I got the impression that work will be done with M until she agrees to accept an adoptive placement and no contact. Her voice will not be heard if she wants to continue seeing her mother. Ms Shaw was not willing even to do a risk assessment around post adoption direct contact.

34. In cross examination, Ms Shaw agreed that mother has shown commitment to contact and it has been positive for the children. Mother loves the children and they love her. She still does not see any benefit to contact. Asked about there being no reference in her evidence to post adoption contact, the social worker said that this would be “a learning point” for her. She had not considered contact at all. She was asked about it again on behalf of the children and she had not considered that it might be easier for M to settle in an adoptive placement if she has contact. It became clear that no-one in the local authority had thought about contact.

35. The guardian, in her evidence, said that she has reconsidered contact. The guardian still does not think long term foster care is in the children’s interests, especially C’s, he is so young. She reminded me that it is not just the possible lack of permanence, but boundaries have to be kept in place and the children may have to go into respite care when the foster cares are on holiday as happened a few months ago . That may change if this becomes a long term placement. In considering contact, she would not support it for father. His presentation could be intimidating and he could undermine the placement. For mother, she recognises the strength of the relationship and there should be a risk assessment of contact going forward. M is clear she doesn’t wish to be adopted because she would not see her parents. She would be more open to it if she could see her parents. She thinks contact with mother should happen if possible. The risk assessment would be to see if she could manage 3 hours. She would not necessarily have to be drug or alcohol free. It sounded to me as though a pre contact meeting to check mother could cope would be needed, rather than a risk assessment. That appears to be the plan. She said that the adopters would need professional advice as there would be some disruption after contact. She hopes the post adoption team would offer support .

36. The guardian said that the children’s relationship with their mother is not an unhealthy relationship. M has memories, she loves her mother and it would be in her interests to check in with her mum. Unfortunately, the guardian did not explore M’s views on adoption if she could continue to see her mother. She now says that maintaining the relationship with their mother would be a huge advantage but it should be reduced to give the placement stability. She would normally say 6 times a year, but even twice a year can maintain the relationship. 6 times a year in school holidays has been shown to be right for children. She was referring to contact if they remain in foster care when she said the 6 times a year. I agree that that would be the right level for the children if they are in foster care. Everyone agrees that the reduction should be gradual. In my judgment, the same reduction should apply in relation to the contact the children have with their father. For compassionate reasons, the guardian suggested it could remain at monthly but my view is that for the children to be settled, the gradual reduction should be the same in relation to each parent’s contact. For adoption, she thinks it should be twice a year. I think twice a year is too little for M. She would understand and cope better with knowing that she will see her mother in each longer school holiday.

37. If the local authority would not even do a risk assessment around contact, the guardian recommended that I make an order under section 26. A risk assessment is not a full assessment of the advantages and disadvantages of direct contact. I have already made that assessment and so has the guardian. The local authority now agrees to do a risk assessment in response to that recommendation of the guardian. But, if the local authority will not support direct contact, it is difficult to see how it could happen. The local authority will not support direct contact even if their risk assessment recommends direct contact. It is unlikely that it would happen on a practical basis without local authority support for the children and the adopters. In my judgment, I would have to make an order for contact given the local authority’s lack of commitment to supporting contact to ensure it continues at least until an adoption application is made. I would approve the care plan for reduced contact as being in the children’s interests but order that contact with mother should take place 3 times a year in school holidays and not come to an end once the children are placed for adoption. However, I do not think a placement order is in the children’s interests.

38. There have been delays in this case for a number of reasons outside of the court’s control. This final hearing was listed last October so the local authority had plenty of time to consider the problems in their care plan. At the end of the second day of this hearing last week, they still needed more time. I now have more reassurances about keeping the children together if I make a placement order but still very little reassurance about contact.

39. I come back to the welfare checklist and the children’s welfare throughout their lives. The sibling relationship is the longest relationship they are likely to have. It is very important for these children. They need to stay together. They need to have contact with their mother. In my judgment, those needs are priorities when considering the options.

40. The care plan of adoption is guided by C’s needs for understandable reasons given his age, but insufficient thought was given to M’s needs. Only the family finder seems to understand the benefits of post adoption contact and to have considered the risk of the children being separated if an adoptive placement together is not found. The court has little control over that. I know that children can become separated if foster placements do not work out but the local authority is still in a position to ensure they continue to have contact with each other.

41. It was suggested that a transcript of this judgment, clear recitals on the order and in the IRO’s records that C is not to be placed for adoption separately would help. The head of the family finding team would give an assurance that no search will be made for the children separately. I cannot attach a condition that they must be placed together. As the family finder said in his evidence, if his team cannot find a placement together, they go back to the children’s team to decide. At that stage, the local authority may say that, if a placement for C could be found, then the children should be separated. It could happen because of the circumstances at the time. It is not in the interests of the children to separate them but that could happen and I do not think I can say that placement orders are in the children’s best interests given the risk. The guardian rightly reminds me of the risk of M rejecting the plan of adoption and that could impact on C’s chances of identifying and remaining in an adoptive placement. If the children are placed together and M rejects it, that too could lead to the children being separated or returning to foster care together but not necessarily to their current carers. That would be harmful for both children. It is a real concern to me that the local authority had not thought about it until last week. There was an assumption that a suitable placement would be found and that M would be persuaded to accept it. I am not so sure about that.

42. The risk of the children being separated can be reduced by the measures now proposed but the children would still suffer harm if it happened. I am not persuaded that adoption is in the children’s best interests in this case. I have considered the benefits of adoption through permanence in a loving family and a private family life and I have already referred to the disadvantages of long term foster care. In this case, though, there is a realistic prospect of the children remaining with their current carers where they are thriving. Not enough consideration has been given to the advantages of that. Contact, which is particularly important for M, would continue. I balance that against the difficulty in finding a suitable adoptive placement for 2 children where one of them is already 7 and the likely loss of contact given the local authority is not willing to support it post adoption. The plan is now to search for a year which will prevent the children being able to feel fully settled. If the contact then comes to an end, the children would feel the loss even more. The relationship is very important to M. Her mother meets her needs in contact and will not undermine the foster placement. Continuing that relationship benefits both children.

43. I regret that the local authority has not adequately considered the benefits of contact, the benefits of remaining in the present foster placement or M’s wishes and feelings. Both children have enjoyed contact with their mother and M has a strong sense of familial identity. Her wishes and feelings are clear. She does understand that she would not have contact with her mother if she is adopted. She wants the relationship to continue. The local authority plan is to work on her, rather than look at how they can meet M’s need for contact. The guardian did not consider the benefits of contact adequately either but she has now and she says that contact is in the children’s interests if they are adopted and proposes a contact order under section 26 if the local authority will not even do a risk assessment around contact. But a contact order now will not help if there is no support for contact from the local authority once the children are placed for adoption. Any risk assessment would be negative. There would need to be genuine support for an open adoption and a plan for making contact work and supporting or supervising it. I do not see that in this case.

44. The local authority will not provide support for direct contact post adoption even if their risk assessment recommends direct contact. They blame resource issues but I have seen local authorities find a way. It is unlikely that contact would happen on a practical basis without local authority support for the children and the adopters. For M, my conclusion is that the value of an ongoing relationship with her mother is so important that I cannot say that adoption is the order which meets her needs. If the children remain in long term foster care, they will have contact with their mother. For both children, they need their sibling relationship to be maintained. I cannot say that adoption is in C’s best interests in those circumstances. Those are the disadvantages of making a placement order. I have already referred to the disadvantages of long term foster care. But if I make only the care orders, there is a realistic prospect of the children remaining in their current foster placement which would avoid the need for a change in their circumstances in addition to the benefits of contact.

45. When I consider the advantages and disadvantages of the options before the court, the disadvantages of placement orders are greater than those of long term foster care. The advantages of contact, the more likely retention of the sibling relationship and possibly remaining where they are outweigh the advantages of adoption because a level of permanence can be achieved and the relationship with mother is more likely to be maintained. In my judgment it is not in the children’s interests to make placement orders. I cannot therefore dispense with the parents’ consent because I am not satisfied that the children’s welfare requires it. I make care orders and refuse the application for placement orders.