A (Care and Placement orders), Re

A is the very-much loved daughter of M and F. In this judgment, I will refer to them as “the mother” and “the father.” A is seven months old now. This is the Local Authority’s application for a care and placement order. The applications are both supported by A’s Children’s Guardian.

The mother and father both oppose the making of the placement order, but do not oppose the making of the care order. The mother would invite me to adjourn the proceedings or, latterly, to place A in foster care to enable her to undertake work so that she can make appropriate changes in her life. The father supports the mother in that position. He recognises that he is not in a position to care for A now, nor will he be in the near future. He says that if I decide it is not appropriate for A to live with her mum, he would invite me to place A with his mum, the paternal grandmother.(PGM) .

Initially, I was told that the parties would like to deal with this case by way of submissions, with no evidence being called, but given that the parents did not accept the social worker or the Guardian’s analysis in terms of what was the most appropriate welfare outcome for A, I invited the parents’ representatives to put those challenges to the social worker and the Guardian, and so some brief evidence was heard from them. No further evidence has been heard and, therefore, the Local Authority’s case effectively remains unchallenged. Both the social worker and the Guardian confirmed their position that they felt adoption was in the best interests for A, and explained their reasons why.

I have not heard any evidence from either of the parents, although they have both been present throughout the hearing. Everybody agreed that they did not need to give evidence. I have, however, received a very heartfelt letter from A’s mother, and I have received a message from her oldest child, D. Both of those reflect the real love and commitment that they have towards A, and how much a part of the family they feel she is.

Ais the fifth child of the mother and the third child of the father. She is the first child of these parents together. The Local Authority have had significant involvement with the mother and her older children since 2019, and, in 2023, special guardianship orders were made in respect of the mother’s four older children, providing for them to live with their paternal and maternal grandparents.

The ongoing concerns of the Local Authority and the reasons relating to those special guardianship orders were due to the mother and her former partner’s longstanding and illegal drug use, including heroin. The drug use had led to a chaotic and unstable lifestyle. The mother had struggled to engage with professionals. Her relationship with her former partner had been domestically abusive. Mum had struggled with her mental health, and as a result of all of these difficulties, the children had suffered from neglectful parenting.

In the light of this background, when the Local Authority was notified of the mother’s pregnancy with A, they initiated child protection procedures and the Public Law Outline process. The pre-birth assessment of this mother is a detailed document, which sets out in significant detail the abusive and neglectful parenting that this mother received as a child. Her own drug use began in her early teens, including heroin use at the age of 13. On any reading, she was not properly looked after and protected, and this led to her suffering significant harm, both within the home and from others in the community due to her vulnerabilities.

She has been in a number of abusive relationships. Concerns within the parenting assessment were also identified in respect of her current relationship with A’s father, who, himself, has a long history of drug use and criminal activity. Some concerns were identified during the assessment that he had had behaved in an abusive way towards the mother on at least one occasion. The assessment concluded that it would not be safe for Ato be placed in her mother’s care.

The pre-birth risk assessment of the father identified a number of positives, and, in particular, the support that he offered to this mother, which has been a theme that they have both returned to during the course of these proceedings. The mother very much welcomed that support. The father did engage with some professional involvement. The risk assessment, however, also identified significant concerns with the father’s extensive police history, including allegations of significant physical and sexual violence in relation to the father.

Allegations have been made against this father over a number of years, from not only ex-partners, but the children of ex-partners, members of the public and associates. The conclusions of the risk assessment that was completed in May 2025 was that the father posed a significant risk to partners, ex-partners, members of the public and children, and that without engaging in a targeted service, that high risk was unlikely to change. In addition, the father admitted to problematic use of drugs over a number of years, particularly between 2018 and 2022, and ongoing and longstanding use of cannabis. Drug test results completed in respect of the father in April 2025, were positive for cannabis, cocaine and ketamine.

These proceedings were commenced shortly after A’s birth, and Ahas remained in foster care throughout these proceedings. The Local Authority have recognised that the mother has demonstrated some real positive changes in her life. She did engage with the pre-birth assessment, something which she had struggled to deal with in previous proceedings. She has engaged with health services. She went to her scans, and she engaged with substance support services. The social worker notes that her engagement with her drug navigator and with the allocated social worker was far more meaningful than previous engagement. At a recent meeting her drug navigator, Ms P , reported that, “This is the best I have ever seen M.”

The updated parenting assessment of the mother was completed in September 2025. Whilst the mother was able to recognise and articulate the concerns that professionals held in respect of the father, and accepted that he could not be trusted around A, he remained an important person in her life, and a significant source of support. The mother has been very keen to stress that this is not a formal relationship, although I understand the couple is still engaged in a sexual relationship. This is in contrast to the father’s description of the relationship between the couple. In his final statement of 24 October 2025, he is clear that the couple are still in a romantic relationship, although, at the outset of this hearing, I was told that the father now reports that that relationship has ended.

This parenting assessment noted a number of positives for the mother, some of which I have touched upon: her continued engagement with her drug navigator, her commitment to and very positive interactions with A during family time, her commitment to and attendance at all of A’s health appointments and her ability to reflect and consider her behaviours. She had been able to obtain and maintain a tenancy and had begun to work with IDAS, who work with victims of domestic abuse.

The social worker agreed with the mother’s own observation that she was probably in the best place she had been, and felt that she was the most safe she had ever felt. However, ultimately, the social worker’s parenting assessment concluded negatively due to the ongoing and significant concerns about the mother’s ability to make safe and wise choices, both for herself and others. She was also inconsistent in her reported drug use. As far as I am aware, the mother has not had any support to address her significant unresolved traumas arising from her childhood and the parenting she received. In the social worker’s assessment, the mother needs intensive psychological and therapeutic support to give her the scaffolding she would need in order to keep herself and any child in her care safe.

The mother still struggle to make safe decisions, examples of those being her decision to associate and take drugs with her former friend. There was also a significant incident in July 2025, when the mother had drunk alcohol to excess and then consumed, on her account, mistakenly, baclofen, which was prescribed, as I understand it, for her niece, and is a muscle relaxant. The mother also failed to recognise potential risks to her daughter, D, despite the fact that the father is currently being prosecuted and due to stand trial for offences related to rape and sexual assault of a female aged 16 or over, and sexual assault of a female under 13. Despite knowing this, I understand that D was able to come into contact with and spend time with the father.

During the course of these proceedings, the mother initially maintained a position that she had not used illicit drugs since January 2025, when she describes “a single blip”, when she used what she describes as “a small amount of crack.” The hair strand testing results prepared during the course of these proceedings have been difficult to fully understand and appear, in part, to be contradictory. Those difficulties led to the instruction of Dr John Douse, who is a forensic toxicologist. His report is dated 26 November 2025 and concludes that there was a progressive decrease in the level of drugs detected in the mother’s hair strand testing. This decrease, I understand from his report, was accelerated for cocaine and metabolites, by the developing pregnancy with Ain the last two months of the third trimester.

He suggested that there should be further hair strand testing to see whether the mother was now entirely clear of drugs. This further hair strand testing was undertaken in November 2025, and represented the period from the end of June to the end of October 2025. The results were positive for cannabis, cocaine and ketamine and also for methadone, which, I understand, is prescribed. The results were inconclusive in respect of alcohol consumption. In the conclusion, the report from Lextox records that, on the balance of probabilities, the mother has used cannabis, cocaine and ketamine.

When giving her hair sample, the mother, herself, declared, in November 2025, that she had used ketamine some two months prior to the sample being taken. She did not declare any cannabis use. In her final statement to the Court dated 2 December 2025, the mother asserts that since her previously-known lapse in January 2025, she has not used cannabis, but had bought and used a large bag of ketamine some months before the hair strand testing, and had bought two bags of cocaine mixed with ketamine, which she had taken or bought on 7 November and had used in one night.

I note and find it relevant that this drug use is reported to have occurred shortly after the order of HHJ Carr KC of 28 October 2025, in which provision was made for this further hair strand testing of the mother. Whilst in her final statement, she does not give any explanation as to why she chose to use drugs again at such an important and significant stage in these proceedings, in her letter, she has referred to the stress of the proceedings and A’s health needs. I recognise that these proceedings will, indeed, have been very stressful, but I observe that the job of being a parent is also, at times, very stressful.

Turning, then, to the legal tests, the threshold criteria has now been agreed between the parties, and reflects the parents’ longstanding difficulties with drug use and the mother’s history in respect of her older children. They also reflect the father’s criminal history and impending prosecution. There is no doubt at all that the threshold criteria pursuant to section 31 of the Children Act 1989 is crossed, and I adopt and approve that schedule as the findings of the Court.

The fact that the threshold criteria are met does not lead to an automatic conclusion that a care and, more importantly, a placement order should be made. In deciding what order, if any, I should make, I must consider A’s welfare throughout her life. I have taken into account her age and vulnerabilities, and her particular health needs. I accept that her health needs mean that she needs, perhaps, a higher level of care than other children of her age and that this may, potentially, impact upon the number of people available to consider adopting A. However, in my view, that will not have a significant impact.

I have taken into account very much the commitment that her parents have shown to her, and the evident love they have for her, demonstrated during contact and during their commitment to this process. The care that they offer her during contact periods has been very good. However, I note that this is in a controlled and contained environment. In order to provide A with this very high level of care and the level of care that any young child of her age would need, and, in particular, a child with additional health needs, any parent must be attuned and available, able to recognise and respond to risks and able to prioritise A’s needs. Drug use inevitably impacts on any parent’s ability to be attuned and to be available.

When I look at the capacity of these parents, they both acknowledge that they are not currently in a position to care for A. When I look at the mother’s history and dependence on drugs and her inability to separate from the father, in my view, she would not have the capacity to meet A’s needs and she is right to acknowledge that. There are times, I am sure, when she will provide a very good and high level of care to A, and she would, indeed, smother her with love; I have no doubt at all about that.

However, it is apparent to me that the mother still resorts to drug use on occasions. She is also still unable to recognise why the risks to Afrom her ongoing relationship with the father would not be manageable. I note in her letter, the mother still sought to deflect some of the responsibility for her difficulties to the social worker. I want to be clear that I think this social worker has approached this case with a very positive and open mind in terms of these parents and, particularly, this mother’s ability to care. She has recognised the very significant steps that the mother has taken. However, the mother, herself, needs to fully accept her own responsibility in respect of the current situation.

That does not, though, deflect from the fact that this mother has come a very long way. I was not involved in the previous proceedings, but from everything I have read, I can see the progress that she has made. However, in my judgment, she still has a distance to travel before she would be in a position to care for such a young and vulnerable child. I indicated during this hearing, and I stress, that this is a very rough guide, because there are no definitive timescales, but, in my view, I would hope to see a period of at least 12 months of the mother being entirely drug-free before I would be confident that there was no ongoing drug use and she may be in a position to care.

However, I anticipate that without the mother addressing some of the underlying trauma arising from the harm that she, herself, suffered, she may struggle to completely abstain from drug use or to develop the self-esteem that she needs in order to avoid relationships that have the potential to harm her or any child in her care.

I was informed during closing submissions that the mother has now lodged an application in respect of her older children. The situation in respect of those children may be very different indeed. They are children that the mother has cared for significant period of their lives, and the mother’s situation and the positives that she has achieved must be recognised, and I am sure will be recognised within those proceedings. I wish her the very best of luck with those proceedings, but that is another factor in terms of the position for A. If the mother is successful in resuming care of her older children, I anticipate that that will be a stressful and difficult time, and she will need to focus on their needs and how they feel, having been removed from their mother’s care and potentially returned.

I do recognise that A has a very important relationship with both of her parents and that the severing of that emotional and legal relationship will have a significant impact upon A and upon her parents and her wider family. The message I have received from D reflects what an important part of that wider family she is, and I know that her paternal grandmother is extremely committed to her as well, and I have had extracts of a letter read out to me from her. I have taken all of those matters into account.

Looking at the realistic options for A, I am no longer invited to adjourn these proceedings. I am not sure if that was something that was being formally suggested at the outset, but I now understand Mother’s position is that she accepts that the proceedings will finish and she will invite me to make a care order, with A remaining in foster care to enable her to address her underlying difficulties and, in particular, her drug use. In order to be sufficiently confident that the mother would not resort to drug abuse at times of stress or anxiety, I would hope to see a period of at least 12 months of abstinence. Had the mother remained abstinent since her use of crack cocaine in January 2025, then I would have had greater confidence in respect of this risk.

However, drug use is not the only issue in this case. I would also wish to see the mother fully engaging with work to improve her ability to recognise relationships that have the potential to be harmful to her or any child in her care. I anticipate that, underlying all of this, would be the need for some fairly intensive therapy.

I am entirely satisfied that delay would be detrimental to A’s welfare, and it would not be right to delay decisions for her. She is at a crucial age in terms of forming attachments, and she needs to be able to form attachments with people that will be a part of her life and her care package moving forward.

The mother says that she has not been given sufficient time or opportunity to demonstrate that she can make the changes necessary. I am afraid I do not agree with that. The mother has been through previous proceedings in respect of her older children. She knew the impact of her drug use and, during the pre-birth assessments, the issues in respect of her relationship with the father were well-highlighted. She had both the period of pregnancy, but probably, more importantly, the period during the course of these proceedings, to show real change and an ability to accept and reflect upon the concerns of the professionals.

I am invited by the mother to make an order that would leave A with her current foster carers or other foster carers as arranged by the Local Authority. I do not see that as a realistic option for A. Foster placements do not offer the same level of permanence and belonging to a family that children need. Foster placements represent restrictions and interference in a child’s life. Then there would need to be ongoing social work involvement and statutory visits. She would be different to other children of her age in that respect. Her life would be managed and controlled by Social Care. What I find A needs, more importantly, is carers that can invest in her both now and through into adulthood. She needs to feel a sense of belonging to the family that she will grow up with.

I have considered the assessment of the paternal grandmother, and I note that she sought further assessment, and that that application was refused by HHJ Carr KC. I have read both of the statements that she has filed, and I have also heard extracts of a letter that she has written to the Court. In my view, neither her statements nor what I have been told today about her views undermine the overall information and conclusions of the social work assessment. Again, that assessment is a comprehensive document, which sets out very clearly the reasons why PGM is not considered a suitable potential carer for A throughout her childhood. I also note the report that, on 8 October, PGM made a direct threat against the allocated social worker.

Any placement of A outside of her birth parents would require professional support and intervention, particularly if it was a family placement where contact with the parents was to be managed. All of the information leads me to a very firm conclusion that PGM would not be able to properly work with professionals and, particularly, the allocated social worker to prioritise A’s needs and keep her safe.

Placing A for adoption is not without its own difficulties. Adoptive placements can and sometimes do break down. Children who are adopted can wonder why they were removed from their birth families when sometimes (and it is the case for A) siblings were not. However, experience suggests that with a child as young as A, adoption breakdown is less likely to occur, particularly if her carers ensure that she has a good understanding of her background and her adoption journey. Adoptive parents are subject to a very rigorous assessment and scrutiny, and it is likely that A would be placed with carers who have been assessed to be able to offer her the very highest level of care, commitment and love. She would be able to be integrated as a legal and emotional member of her adoptive family.

Whilst I recognise that the making of a placement order represents a significant interference in the rights of A, her parents and her wider family, and will have a dramatic impact upon her relationship with her wider family, in my view, such interference is necessary and proportionate. The opportunity to grow up within an adoptive family, in my view, is the option that best meets her welfare needs throughout her childhood and into adulthood. I am satisfied that I should make a care order and approve the Local Authority’s plan, and dispense with the parents’ consent to the making of a placement order.

End of Judgment.