Six children, aged between two and twelve, were removed from their parents’ care because they had suffered chronic neglect and emotional harm, after court proceedings that had lasted 28 weeks and local authority involvement for 12 years.
I’ve written about two earlier hearings I attended in this case at Cardiff Family Court – a case management hearing (CMH) in April, Completing care proceedings in less than 26 weeks and an issues resolution hearing (IRH) in August, Children left with harmful parents because of lack of foster carers. This post reports on the listed final hearing and outcomes.
The local authority, Caerphilly County Borough Council, had obtained interim care orders (ICOs) six months earlier, with plans for removal unless the parents could keep to a safety plan. All the children had remained living at home throughout the proceedings, although the oldest child moved (supported by the local authority but her own choice) shortly before this final hearing.
Despite intensive support and scrutiny by the local authority under the ICOs, including daily visits to the home, and detailed instructions in the safety plan on how to keep the house clean and ensuring the children’s developmental and health needs were met, there had been several breaches by the parents and the children were still suffering or at risk of suffering significant harm.
There remained an outstanding issue regarding the status of the placement of the two older children, for which the proceedings have been extended until December, but final orders were made for the four younger children. The two middle children are now together in what is planned as a long-term foster placement and the two youngest subject to care and placement orders in a short-term foster placement with adoption together as the plan.
The judgment, read out by HHJ Muzaffer, who had conducted all the hearings, included some interesting observations about sibling contact.
The parents
In my earlier posts, I called the parents of the four younger children ‘Mr and Mrs A’ and the father of the two older children ‘Mr B’. Mr B had become involved these proceedings as a potential carer for his two children, the older girls; he had not been identified as contributing to the significant harm they had suffered. He hadn’t seen them for about three years before this application by the local authority, and Mrs A was hostile toward his having a relationship with them. The local authority arranged contact for the two older girls with Mr B and his partner and, a few weeks before the final hearing, the oldest daughter decided to move to live with them. All three parents had their own legal representatives.
The parents’ position
At the IRH, Mr and Mrs A were still contesting some points in the statement of the threshold of harm that had been put forward by the local authority.
On Day 1 of the final hearing, the local authority explained that Mr And Mrs A had significantly changed their position and now accepted that all the children would be removed. This change may well have followed the Cafcass guardian’s final report, as she’d been consistent in her concerns about the harm the children were experiencing at home. Mr A continued to deny he was taking drugs, although the test results showed he did, but he said he would ‘accept them scientifically’.
The local authority plans were for the two oldest girls to move to live with their father Mr B and his partner, under a supervision order, with a child arrangements order giving shared parental responsibility (PR) to his partner. The two middle boys were to be placed with long-term foster carers and there were applications for care and placement orders for the two youngest children (two year old twins).
Mr and Mrs A now accepted that all the children would be removed by the local authority on the basis of the significant harm that had been set out in the evidence, including several assessments by social workers and the guardian. However, they didn’t agree with the adoption plan for the twins because the children as a group would lose their relationships with each other, as adoption would legally sever the twins’ relationships not only with their birth parents but also with their older siblings and half sibling
Mrs A wanted the two oldest girls to be placed with Mr B under care orders rather than supervision orders. For their part, Mr B and his partner were prepared to continue under care orders if that was what the court decided.
The children’s welfare
Having now had the opportunity to read more of the court documents, it was clear to me that all these children had experienced serious developmental delays and trauma resulting from their parents’ lack of interaction and care. One of the middle boys was violent in school and on the verge of exclusion. Earlier, the local authority had made a decision that he be placed for adoption but changed this on the basis of his dysregulated behaviour, which would require continued local authority involvement and support. The educational and health needs of all the children had been virtually ignored by Mr and Mrs A. However the local authority and guardian assessments were hopeful that reparative parenting could improve the prospects for all six.
The local authority case
The local authority in an initial search for suitable adoptive applicants for the twins had identified 43 possible adoptive placements meeting general criteria. This process would of course be greatly refined before a matching process began and the children introduced to potential adopters. Experienced long-term foster carers had been found for the two middle boys but this placement could only begin on Day 5 of the listed final hearing. The local authority believed it would be in the children’s best interests to all move on the same day and so arrangements for them all to move on Day 5 were discussed on Day 1. The judge was anxious to check the day-by-day arrangements for the week.
The local authority argued for the least intrusive orders in respect of Mr B, his partner and his daughters – a supervision order and a child arrangements order. With regard to the two youngest children, the local authority believed that the security of adoption was required to meet their welfare needs and were hopeful of finding an adoptive placement where sibling contact could continue.
Amongst six children in three different homes, there was going to be a complicated timetable for contact with each other, and the varying needs of the children regarding contact with Mr and Mrs A. The local authority was proposing a week by week schedule.
The final hearing
There was a bundle of 7,500 pages, condensed to 3,000, for the final hearing. The local authority social worker for the family and the Cafcass guardian gave oral evidence.
All parties were now agreed that care orders should be made for the four youngest children. There were therefore two outstanding issues for the judge to resolve:
1. The type of orders appropriate for the two older girls (care or supervision orders) and whether an extension of the proceedings would be necessary to keep this issue ongoing after the listed five-day final hearing.
Mrs A had been trying to undermine the recent contact between Mr B and their children, calling him an abusive name and encouraging them to do so. It therefore wasn’t surprising that she argued he needed more scrutiny than a supervision order would give. The guardian, though, also had concerns about the largely untested relationship between Mr B and his daughters. Mr B and his partner have two children of their own and, although the local authority seem to have succeeded in reintroducing the girls to their father, there is obviously a lot of adjusting to be made.
2. Whether placement orders should be made for the twins, in the face of their parents’ opposition.
Mr and Mrs A’s lawyers clarified that the parents were not saying they preferred long-term fostering because they hoped to be in a position to discharge the care orders in the future, but because it would be in the children’s welfare to keep their relationships with each other.
The judge’s decisions
In his judgment, HHJ Muzaffer explained that he was considering harm in the context of prolonged child neglect adversely affecting children socially, physically, and emotionally. This harm could be significant but was not irreversible. However, the longer the child’s experience, the more challenging this would be. He commented that the local authority had not issued care applications promptly in 2024 but had put in place safety plans to mitigate harm. Each and very safety plan had however been breached and there was a wealth of evidence that Mr and Mrs A had followed a pattern of excuses, disguised compliance, deterioration and non engagement with health, education and social care. The parent were not self-motivated to change but responded to external events such as police intervention. They had had significant opportunities to show such motivation and intensive support from the local authority for over a year.
Care or supervision orders for the two oldest children
In contrast, Mr B and his partner had been assessed as having a warm caring relationship with their own two young children and a willingness to work with authorities. They were going to undertake some courses and training through the local authority, including for parents of children who’d suffered chronic neglect. The oldest girl had settled well with them and was attending school regularly. However, the guardian had submitted that this was an exceptional case where a care order at home (for Mr B’s daughters with him) was appropriate – in the short term. The judge was satisfied that an extension (beyond 26 weeks) was necessary to make final decisions about the older girls. He fixed a further IRH for December.
Placement for adoption and contact – the two youngest children
With regard to the decisions to be made about the twins, the judge went through the relevant legislation and case law on placement for adoption against birth parents’ wishes, concluding that the strict test for adoption was met.
The lawyers for Mr and Mrs A had submitted that it wasn’t in the children’s welfare to lose their relationships through two of them being adopted. The judge considered the social work assessments of the siblings’ relationships. Sadly, it emerged that there was a dysfunctional degree of sibling rivalry and some physical violence toward Mrs A. The twins played alone with each other and went to the two oldest girls (their half siblings) for comfort and assurance rather than participating together in activities. There was no observable relationship between the twins and the middle two boys (their full siblings). There also seemed little relationship between the two middle boys themselves, although the hope was that this could improve once they were cared for by experienced foster carers.
The guardian had given evidence that the twins were too young to have a secure future in foster care. Adoption was the realistic option for them. There was no prospect of them returning to a family placement. She said that the twins had a right to be seen as individuals and not just in terms of their relationships with the older girls.
The judge concluded that the older children in the family may suffer from the loss of the two younger, and that there was value in maintaining sibling relationships as much as possible. However, the older children’s position couldn’t play a part in a decision about placement orders for the youngest. This was not a close-knit family and it could not be right to deprive the twins of a stable future because they had older siblings.
A Children Act 1989 section 26 order was considered – this would bind the local authority to contact arrangements following the placement orders (as discussed in recent case law – Re S (Placement order contact) [2025] EWCA Civ 823) but the judge concluded this wasn’t appropriate because the local authority’s plan was to search for adopters who would agree to sibling contact. Post-adoption contact with Mr and Mrs A was not planned. Their consent to adoption was dispensed with, as the children’s welfare required this.
Comment
Although the guardian and the judge had views on the length of time the children had been left with Mr and Mrs A before the matter had been brought to court, the guardian was conscious that she had the benefit of hindsight and the judge didn’t explicitly criticise the local authority. He mentioned the corrosive ‘drip, drip, drip’ effect of chronic neglect. I felt there was a consensus that opportunities had been missed but that these weren’t obviously easy to pinpoint.
I’m aware that adoption of younger siblings can be heartbreaking for older children who have cared for them, but sadly in this case it doesn’t seem that any of the sibling relationships were positive ones and it can only be hoped that in future these can all develop on a more secure basis.
We have a small favour to ask!
TEN YEARS A CHARITY
The Transparency Project is a registered charity in England and Wales run by volunteers who mostly also have full-time jobs. Although we’ve now been going for a decade, we’re always working to secure extra funding so that we can keep making family justice clearer for all who use the court and work in it.
We can’t do what we do without help from you!
We’d be really grateful if you were able to help us by making a small one-off (or regular!) donation through our Just Giving page