IN CONFIDENCE

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: SE15C01774

IN THE FAMILY COURT SITTING AT LEEDS

Leeds Civil Hearing Centre
Coverdale House
13-15 East Parade
Leeds
LS1 2BH

Date: 22/03/2016

Before :

HHJ LYNCH
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Between :

	A Local Authority	Applicant	
	- and -		
	C (the mother)	1st Respondent	
	- and -		
	D (1st father)	2nd Respondent	
	- and -		
	E (2nd father)	3rd Respondent	
	- and -		
	F (a family member)	4th Respondent	
	- and -		
	G (3rd father) 	5th Respondent	
	- and -		
	The Children
(through their Children’s Guardian)	6th – 8th  Respondents	

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

Brett Davies for the Applicant
Joanne Astbury for the 1st Respondent
Julie Richardson for the 2nd Respondent
Sukhbeer Shergill for the 3rd Respondent
Sarah Blackmore for the 4th Respondent
Catherine Smith for the 5th Respondent
John Myers for the 6th – 8th Respondents

Hearing dates: 21-22 March 2016 

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

JUDGMENT
Introduction
1.	In these proceedings I am concerned for three children, X (aged three), Y aged almost two), and Z (aged five months). The children’s mother is C. The father of X is D.  The father of Y is G and the father of Z is E.  Of the fathers, only D has parental responsibility for his child. 
2.	X was placed with her father and his wife at the outset of these proceedings, under a Child Arrangements Order, and has lived with them ever since. Y and Z are placed with a member of the mother’s extended family, F, under a Child Arrangements Order. They have been with her since the outset of these proceedings but she provided a substantial amount of care for all three children for some considerable time before this. She still cares for X on alternate weekends. The mother currently has supervised contact with the children three times a week, while E has supervised contact with Z once a week. G has sought no contact with Y. 
3.	D and E have both played a part in these proceedings and have been assessed, E purely for contact. G however has had little involvement. He initially refused to engage with DNA paternity testing.  He has another child in his care, under a care order to the local authority, and was encouraged to participate in DNA testing through the LAC review process, with the significance of his paternity being identified as an important issue for the child in his care. He has not engaged with the court or the social worker throughout the proceedings.  Y’s surname is the name of a previous partner of the mother but who has no link whatsoever to Y.  
4.	These care proceedings were actually commenced by another local authority in early October of last year. That local authority at the outset sought interim care orders but, having changed their plan early on to interim supervision orders, applied to designate the current local authority. The current local authority accepted that and agreed to assume conduct of the proceedings. At that first hearing the child arrangement orders were made and interim supervision orders to the first local authority. At the next hearing the interim supervision orders were made to the current local authority and the case was transferred to this court. F was made a party and DNA testing was ordered in respect of the younger children. At the first hearing in this court the case was timetabled through to an issues resolution hearing earlier this month. Following the DNA test results first E and then G were made parties to the case. Today's hearing was listed at the IRH when it became clear matters were not agreed, although since that hearing the issues have narrowed. The one other matter to mention is that the local authority issued an application to change Y’s surname to his mother's, that application being made on 17 March, and that has been served on all parties including personally on G.
Threshold
5.	The care proceedings arose out of neglect of the children’s basic care needs,  C having frequent different partners who posed risks to her and the children, and the family’s chaotic lifestyle.  C had also shown that she was unable to work alongside professionals at times and this impaired the ability of professionals to safeguard the children in her care.  C sadly was not afforded good care by her own mother, and accepts that her own parenting has been negatively affected as a result. Back on 1 December the parties including C were able to agree that the threshold for making public law orders had been crossed. The wording of the threshold document agreed between the parties is as follows : 
a.	C has difficulties in her emotional functioning.  She has a diagnosis of ADHD and a degree of learning difficulty.  She was assessed by an expert psychologist on 26 August 2015, and whilst she did not meet the diagnostic criteria for a learning disability, her cognitive profile shows some difficulties with verbal skills, understanding of word meanings and her working memory is impaired.
b.	C has experienced a history of poor parenting, neglect and emotional harm and as such has a negative experience upon which to base her parenting skills.
c.	C’s vulnerability leads her to enter into successive unsuitable relationships and to make inappropriate friendships with other adults whom she knows little about, allowing them significant involvement in the children’s caregiving, including changing nappies.  The family home has been targeted and damaged. 
d.	C leads a chaotic and transient lifestyle.  She moves home in an effort to avoid social care intervention in respect of the children.
e.	There have been continued concerns in respect of C’s ability to provide X and Y with good enough and safe care.  X and Y were made the subject of a child protection plan in the categories of emotional, physical and sexual abuse and neglect on 25 March 2015.
f.	C is unable to meet the children’s basic needs for adequate supervision, regular nappy changes and a sufficiently warm home on a consistent basis.  The children have sustained various injuries.
g.	C formed a new relationship on 24 August 2015 despite being given advice not to enter into new relationships or introduce new partners to the children as early as the transfer-in conference.  She reported that her new partner does not have a criminal record, yet his PNC print out consists of 11 pages, and he has a conviction for carrying a bladed article.  Her new partner has been diagnosed with psychosis.  When C was informed about the outcome of the PLO process of 01 October 2015, namely to issue care proceedings, she indicated that she was not prepared to end her relationship, saying that if she lost care of her children she was not going to lose him too.
6.	I have considered carefully the assessments I have of C. There was a parenting assessment carried out by the local authority which concluded negatively, despite positives being identified within the assessment.  The social workers concluded that the mother's own experiences in her childhood meant she struggled to make and sustain positive relationships with adults. She forms quick relationships with people and she is vulnerable and dependent. Even family relationships have not been consistent. 
7.	C has undertaken a number of courses on parenting and child development. She therefore has a theoretical knowledge of good basic care, but is unable to apply that consistently in practice, requiring constant prompting.
8.	C is reported to have a diagnosis of adult ADHD which she neither accepts, nor does she comply with treatment. The social worker believes this could be relevant to the mother's inability to focus on regulating how she responds or to behave consistently towards others including the children. 
9.	The social worker looked at the possibility of support being put in place to enable the children to live with their mother. She noted in the past C has had extensive support, from family as well as professionals, but this has not produced the desired result. The situation has only improved when she has been in a stable relationship but the ending of such relationships leads to risk when she forms other relationships quickly. In terms of working with professionals, C has been seen as oppositional to support and guidance and challenging in nature.  In her assessment the social worker concludes that C is at the “pre-contemplation” stage of change, “defensive, unaware of concerns, denying responsibility”. 
10.	The guardian came to very similar conclusions in her final analysis. She has relatively recently observed contact between the children and their mother so had a very up-to-date view of the mother's parenting. Having reviewed all the evidence she said there remained a high level of concern that these children’s physical and emotional needs would not be met if they were returned to their mother’s care.  The guardian said the reason for this was C’s lack of empathy with the children, her simplistic view of the children’s needs and how she struggled to meet their needs in contact, even with the support and guidance of the contact supervisor. She said the mother still struggled to understand why the local authority were concerned, perceiving herself as a good parent and instead deflecting concern to the children on to others.
11.	The guardian in her report reflected her concerns about the mother's lifestyle, the relationship she had had during the life of these proceedings including a new relationship she was now in. The guardian said in her report: "(The contact supervisor) described C as someone who thrives on high drama and who always has conflict in her life, which she chooses to share during contact.  My concern is that C’s attitude and lifestyle has not altered and any child in her care would soon be exposed to a chaotic lifestyle, high numbers of strangers (some of those potentially posing a risk) and is likely to have their needs overlooked.”
12.	The guardian commented in her report on the contact she observed which was chaotic and unstructured. She met with the contact supervisor who told her that during contact she has offered advice, support and modelled parenting to C.  This appears to be taken on board and acted upon but not sustained.  She went on: "(The worker) believes that there is a cycle whereby she has to be really directive and firm with C about her efforts in contact, resulting in a ‘best behaviour’ phase, where C tries hard but ultimately reverts to being distracted by personal issues and not meeting the children’s needs.  (The worker) told me that at times the contact has been unsafe for the children.”
13.	The guardian was very clear that if the mother had care of any of the children she would not be able to meet their needs to a good enough standard. She was not attuned to the children's needs and could not prioritise them over her own.
14.	C of course has not challenged the evidence in respect of herself and has accepted the children remaining in their current placements. I have set out the evidence regarding her in more detail than I might have otherwise because of the issues around the need for a contact order, to which I shall return.
The  Issues and the Position of the Parties
15.	In preparing for this hearing I have read the full bundle of papers provided to me in this matter and I have heard submissions from advocates for all parties. 
16.	The care plans advocated by the local authority are in effect a continuation of the current position. X is to remain in the care of her father and his wife, along with her half-siblings. That is not actively opposed by any party.  The plan for Y and Z is for them to remain in the care of F under special guardianship orders, and again that plan is not actively opposed by any party.
17.	The application to change Y’s name is uncontroversial. The local authority, guardian, mother and F all agree that his name should be changed to his mother’s. His father, G, has not attended court and has given his solicitors no instructions although he was served with the local authority’s application last week with a covering letter urging him to contact his solicitor and reminding him of the firm’s phone number. The fact that he has not attended means the application is not by consent but there is no opposition to it from any quarter. 
18.	For the purposes of today's hearing then the issues between the parties have become extremely narrow. At the issues resolution hearing C took issue with the younger children remaining with F and also wanted a shared care arrangement in respect of X. She has since then thought carefully about her position and now accepts that orders will be made in line with the plans for the children. She would however ideally wish there to be contact more frequently than monthly and would wish the arrangements for contact to be underpinned by a defined order setting out the arrangements; that is opposed by all other parties. The other issue to be determined today is the duration of the supervision orders, the local authority inviting the court to make these for six months and the guardian seeking orders for one year. 
Contact
19.	The plans for contact are largely agreed, although whether any order is required in respect of the mother’s contact remains an issue. Sibling contact will happen naturally because X will continue to stay at F’s home every other weekend so the children will be seeing each other regularly. Contact arrangements for Z with her father are agreed, as G's contact will be arranged between him and F. It has been weekly for one hour and the proposal is for it to be monthly for three hours. G and F are happy they can agree additional contact if all goes well and indeed this has already happened. F will continue to supervise contact whilst supervision is needed. G does not seek any orders in respect of his contact, being happy to work with F in this regard. 
20.	The only issue in respect of contact relates to the mother’s contact, the level at which it should happen and the need for orders defining the mother’s contact. In terms of contact between the children and their mother, the proposal is that this should be monthly and should be supervised by F, unless and until any other agreed arrangements are put in place. D also offers some additional contact for X around Christmas and around X’s birthday, supervised by him. The mother in her final statement did not oppose that level of contact, but upon speaking further to Ms Astbury it became clear she would really wish to have contact at a higher level than monthly. If the court was not willing to say it would be more frequently, her worry would be whether it would in fact happen and so she invites the court to make an order defining her contact. Ms Astbury said on her behalf the issue was enforcement, whether a court could enforce an arrangement as set out in a recital. 
21.	The recital I refer to here is one which was drafted after I had heard submissions in this case but before this judgment had been prepared for the following day. The draft order was emailed for me to see and certainly sets out in considerable detail what the plans are, putting dates to the sessions over the coming months while it reduces to the proposed level of monthly. Those recitals also deal with various issues which became evident as final submissions were being made, around the assessment of other potential supervisors for the mother’s contact, how contact arrangements will be reviewed during the life of the supervision orders, contact for the maternal aunt, who will attend contact, and assistance to be offered to repair the relationship between C and F. Recitals have also been included addressing the sharing of information about the children with the mother 
22.	The local authority and the guardian oppose the making of a defined order. The social worker observes that at times C’s contact is not of good quality.  The guardian having observed contact recently said in her report that the mother seemed at a loss as to how to engage with Y and went on to comment the contact was chaotic and unstructured. The professionals say there should be no order in respect of contact but instead contact should be appropriately reviewed and considered within the six-weekly supervision order review meetings, to ensure it remains at the right duration, frequency and level of supervision as is in the children’s best interests. 
23.	In terms of contact, the guardian in her report agreed the children's contact with their mother needed to be reduced and supervised. She said the level of contact should reflect the long-term plans for the children, allowing them to maintain their relationship with their mother whilst enabling them to embed and belong in their long-term placements. She said the local authority's proposals achieve this balance, alongside allowing the children have contact in a natural and neutral venue with a person present with whom they feel safe. She concluded by saying "Ultimately, decisions about contact fall within the children's carers’ domain under the advice and guidance of the local authority".
24.	F in her final statement set out very clearly her views in respect of contact. She is entirely accepting of the proposal for contact once a month for three hours for both C and E, seeing that the children need regular contact with their parents. She has already supervised one session for each parent. She says E's was very much child focused and she has agreed to additional contact him. She says though that the one she supervised for C was much less successful, with C turning up with a seven year old girl she was babysitting for and the girl’s twenty three year old brother who apparently was supervising the babysitting. F said that the next contact was missed by C. F's view is that it would be better if contact takes place at a regular time and venue and her proposal it is on the first Saturday of each month. She asks that C phones twenty four hours before between the hours of 10am and 1pm on the Friday to confirm she is going to come. F has set this time as she says the mother has been phoning extremely frequently which is causing difficulties. F talks of contact being able to increase or decrease depending on how it works out for the children. She states clearly that she does not in any way wish to prevent C or E from having a relationship with the children. However she says that she does not want contact to be stipulated in a court order.
25.	Turning to D's views in respect of contact in respect of X, he is happy that monthly contact with her mother is right for his daughter. He approves of the gradual plan to reduce contact. He is very grateful to F for agreeing to supervise the contact on a monthly basis, and in addition he would be happy to facilitate extra contact which he would supervise around the time of Christmas and X's birthday. He would have no problem with the maternal aunt being involved in some of the contact as she is someone with whom the children have an existing relationship. In terms of the need for a contact order as sought by the mother, he has no strong view but does not really see there is a need for this. He can see it would be useful to have some flexibility. As with F, he drew my attention that that some recent contact had been missed by C.
26.	Finally looking at the situation in respect of E, early on in these proceedings he made the very brave decision to recognise that he was not in a position to care for Z and that she was best placed with F. To make such a decision is a huge thing for any parent and reflects very well on E, showing how he has been able to put Z’s needs first. He currently has contact with his daughter once a week for one hour and understands that contact will become less frequent after the court proceedings end. Whilst he would have liked contact more than three hours once a month he said he was willing to work with F to develop his contact to the level that best met Z’s needs. He has a good relationship with F and was happy they could work together in respect of contact. He would hope ultimately to be able to have more contact and if possible for that to be unsupervised, but again is happy to work with F towards such changes. E understood that the question of whether his contact could become unsupervised may best be addressed by F discussing this with the local authority. As a result he said an effective means of establishing a link with the local authority after the supervision order expired would be of great importance to the family. He has offered no views on what should happen in respect of C’s contact with Z. 
Duration of supervision orders
27.	In addition to the child arrangements order and special guardianship orders, the local authority seeks supervision orders for a period of six months in respect of all three children. The guardian agrees supervision orders are necessary but her view is that those orders should last for twelve months.  
28.	The local authority says that it will apply to extend any supervision order if necessary or if appropriate continue to manage the case in some other forum, such as Child In Need. It argues that the least interventionist approach should apply and that a six month order would be proportionate.  The social worker considers that for a supervision order to be in place when it is no longer needed would not be in the children’s best interests, and in her view, it is unlikely to be needed for more than six months. Mr Davies on the local authority's behalf suggested it could be seen as invading the family's privacy if supervision orders were made for longer than the six months proposed. The local authority invites me to include in a supervision order a condition that the mother keeps the local authority aware of any changes in her address during the life of the supervision order. I should add for completeness Mr Davies said that the local authority would work with a twelve month order if the court felt this was the appropriate duration.
29.	Interestingly none of the family members involved in this case has expressed a strong view about how long the supervision orders should last. C, D, E and F in essence leave it to the court to decide. Both C and D have expressed a slight preference for six months but can see reasons why the court may wish the order to last for longer. F could see that there were some ongoing issues where the family may benefit from ongoing local authority guidance. E too saw value in the local authority being involved for a while in terms of the social worker talking to F about the need for his contact to be supervised, and he raised the importance of there being a mechanism in place for that to happen after the supervision order concluded.
30.	The guardian in her report said she supported the local authority's application for supervision orders but believed they should be for the duration of twelve months and that remains her position. In court Mr Myers said on her behalf that she could not understand the local authority's reluctance to agree to anything other than a six month order, Mr Myers saying the case cried out for local authority involvement for as long as it takes. The guardian's view is that such orders would better secure the support needed by the children's carers to manage C's contact and to allow the case to settle properly after final decisions were made. 
31.	The guardian points out there are many issues where involvement of the local authority may be needed, for example in relation to difficulties between C and F, the mother's fear that contact will break down, issues around supervision of contact, to name but a few. The guardian also feels that the Christmas period will be a particularly emotional time. This is a mother who struggles with other people caring for her children; as an example F last Sunday apparently received twenty four phone calls from the mother. This kind of behaviour the guardian argues put a huge amount of pressure on Y and Z’s placement and there needs to be a buffer. F is no longer willing to even have the two phone calls a week from the mother to update C regarding the children which has been the agreement during proceedings and the guardian says in the short term the social worker is going to need to pass on information to take the pressure off F. The same may well be true for D.
Y’s surname
32.	The local authority has at the last minute issued an application to change Y’s surname to his mother’s. His current surname is that of a man the mother had a relationship with but who is not his father. The guardian raised in her final analysis the suggestion that his name should be changed to his mother’s, which would also mean he had the same name as Z. 
33.	In issuing its application, the local authority argues that this change of name would be Y’s best interests. In his position statement, Mr Davies argues that Y’s surname is an integral part of his identity, and at present it neither reflects his maternal family nor his links to his biological father, an issue which is likely to be exacerbated if the court approves a plan of his placement outside of his mother’s care. The local authority submits that in future Y may struggle to explain his surname to others. Changing it would also reflect the wish of his mother and F who is to be his special guardian.  
The Law
34.	The only area of law I propose to address in this judgement is that relating to the change of name for Y, the law in relation to the other matters being more routine. Mr Davies filed a position statement addressing the law in respect of the change of name to which I should direct myself.
35.	The leading authority on the circumstances in which it is right for a child’s surname to be changed is Re B [1996] 1 FLR 791 where the Court of Appeal, Stuart-Smith LJ and Wilson J, which is that such an order is unusual.  Wilson J, upholding the trial judge’s decision to refuse leave to the mother to change her three children’s surname to her own, approved the dictum of Buckley J in Re T (Otherwise H) [1963] Ch 238 that “…it is injurious to the link between the father and the child to suggest to the child that there is some reason why it is desirable that she should be called by some name other than her father’s name.”  The point was made that given divorce and remarriage, cohabitation outside marriage, and parents not necessarily having the same surnames within marriage, it was far more common for a child to have a different surname to that of the adults in his home. 
36.	In Re W, Re A, Re B (Change of Name) [1999] 2 FLR 930 Butler-Sloss LJ (as she then was) set out key guidelines when considering an application for change of surname. Of particular relevance to this case, she said among the factors to which the court should have regard is the registered surname of the child and the reasons for the registration, for instance recognition of the biological link with the child's father. Registration is always a relevant and an important consideration but it is not in itself decisive. The weight to be given to it by the court will depend upon the other relevant factors or valid countervailing reasons which may tip the balance the other way. The relevant considerations should include factors, which may arise in the future as well as the present situation.
Reasons given for changing or seeking to change a child's name based on the fact that the child's name is or is not the same as the parent making the application do not generally carry much weight. 
Decision
37.	I now turn to consider what orders if any are in the best interests of X, Y and Z. In many cases judges deal with the plan for children is for them to be removed from parents whereas here all three children are going to grow up living within their birth families and that has to be best for them.  In reaching my decision I have taken into account that the children’s welfare is my paramount consideration and also the need to make the least interventionist order possible. I have to consider the Article 8 rights of the adults and the children.  My decision inevitably involves an interference with the right to respect to family life. Having given very careful consideration to the orders I am going on to make, I am satisfied that those orders are in accordance with law, necessary for the protection of the children’s rights and are proportionate. I have also in reaching my decision considered all the points in the welfare checklist contained in s1 Children Act 1989. 
38.	Given that I am making special guardianship orders, it is important that I record that all parties agree to me making such orders, even though no application for such orders has been made. S1(2A) Children Act 1989 is also relevant. I start from the position of course that it must be presumed that, unless the contrary is shown, that involvement of each parent in the life of the children will further the child’s welfare.  I remind myself that involvement here means involvement of some kind, either direct or indirect, but not any particular division of a child’s time. The parent must be able to be involved in the child’s life in a way that does not put the child at risk of suffering harm.
39.	Looking first at the main application, the question of where the children should live in the medium to long term, I make a child arrangements order in respect of X in favour of D and his wife and a special guardianship order in respect of both Y and Z in favour of F. Due to her own difficulties the children's mother is not in a position to meet their needs and I have no confidence that that position will change in the future. I am afraid I do not share her confidence that she has shown increasing stability and an improved ability to care for the children. I agree with the guardian that the placements the children are in are first class and all of the children's needs are being met. I am entirely satisfied that each of the children are in the right placements for them and that those placements need to be secured. 
Change of name for Y
40.	This issue I have found very straightforward, despite it being an application which is not often made. Y, for some reason I do not comprehend, carries the surname of a man who is not his father and who has not acted as such. It does not therefore reflect an important relationship, one that needs to be preserved and recognised. He does not have the same name as his mother or indeed with his sister with whom he will be living. Whilst it is not uncommon for such a situation to arise, that does not mean it is what is best for a child. In this particularly unusual situation, I think it is entirely appropriate that Y’s surname should be changed to that of his mother. The only reason to retain his current name would be if he was used to it and it had become part of his identity, but this is a child who is very young. The extent to which he will have a real sense of his surname is very limited, although that may well change quite quickly once he starts nursery. His birth father has chosen to play no part in this case but I have no difficulty in making this decision in his absence given he has been served with the application and in any event the name he carries is not his father’s. I therefore make an order permitting Y’s surname to be changed to his mother’s. 
Need for defined arrangements for contact with C
41.	It is very obvious to me, as it has been to the social worker and guardian, that C loves her children and wants what is best for them. She clearly would prefer to be caring for her children herself and Ms Astbury on her behalf said that C feels she has been demonstrating increased stability and ability to care for her children, such that she believes they should be cared for by her. She has however recognised the force of the evidence before the court and has made the very difficult decision not to oppose in any active way the making of orders in favour of D and F, reflecting that all of the children having their long term homes away from her care. 
42.	C is clearly very worried at the prospect of her relationship with her children changing as her contact decreases. She is not happy with the idea of monthly contact, worrying that it will not be sufficient for the children. She has agreed to the plan for reducing contact but is afraid that once contact reaches the level of monthly, if I say that is the right level, it may not be sustained. Ms Astbury on her behalf says the mother is afraid that the at times volatile relationship she has had with F may mean that F does not encourage contact or that arrangements break down. She does not look forward to the idea of her contact being supervised by F and yesterday put forward two other possible supervisors whom she would like to be assessed, a maternal aunt of the children and a friend of F’s. 
43.	When listening to the submissions it was very obvious to me that there were a plethora of issues still between the parties and that it had not been possible to resolve those without being at court. The fact that a recital has gone into the draft order recording that the social worker will facilitate a meeting between C and F "to try and broker agreement and trust at a time when C considers she is ready, able and willing to invest in such a meeting" is telling. The potential for indirect contact between the two women has also broken down and again that is reflected in the draft recitals. 
44.	It seems to me much is likely to need to be done in the short to medium term if these three little children are to go on having a relationship with all the people who matter in their lives. Looking at the welfare checklist, although these are young children one can assume they would want to go on having a relationship with their mother. Contact arrangements have to change to reflect the fact that the children's long-term home is away from their mother and the fact that contact with her has not always been a positive experience the children, despite her evident love for them. I agree with the guardian that the level of contact should reflect the long-term plans for the children, allowing them to maintain their relationship with their mother whilst enabling them to embed and belong in their long-term placements. A level of contact has to be found which does not put either placement under too much pressure but which maintains a relationship between the children and their mother and I am satisfied at this point in time monthly contact should enable that to be achieved. That may not always be the case; it may need to go up or down as planning for contact is not an exact science. An arrangement needs to be put in place which can be maintained by the mother and by F as contact breaking down I am clear would be harmful to the children. Contact may not always happen according to the schedule but I would encourage F to understand that at times it may be in the children's best interests for her to work to avoid a big gap in their contact with their mother, however inconvenient that is to her. Equally C needs to commit to attending regularly which means planning for those contact sessions and remembering to make the phone call the day before. Her children deserve a mother who puts the children first and they will get that message if she makes sure she always turns up for their contact and takes the opportunity to have the best possible time with them. 
45.	Following on from that, I do not think it would be right to make an order at this stage defining contact because there needs to be flexibility in all directions. Contact needs to adapt to what the children need but with the goal of always keeping alive the children's relationship with their mother. I acknowledge that an enforcement order cannot be sought in relation to the recitals as contained in today's order. If C believes that F is not complying with the recitals she would have to make an application to court for an order defining contact. Obviously if contact needed to continue and the recitals had not had the desired effect then a defined order may need to be made, with all the practical problems that may bring, but we are not at that point yet.
46.	I am therefore not going to make any defined order in respect of contact but approve the recitals as contained in the draft order.
Duration of supervision orders
47.	The one remaining issue is the duration of the supervision orders and I propose to deal with this very briefly. These children need contact with their mother to continue consistently and that is not going to be easy. This is a mother who has her own difficulties. She has been brought to a point of accepting her children shall remain living with other carers but it is very clear that this is not really what she wants. The level of phone calls she has made to F, issues around threats she may have made to other family members, her changeable position at court, all show me that she has found this very hard. It is obvious there is real potential for the recitals in today's order to fail to manage the situation. These children are young and vulnerable; they have suffered harm and there is the potential for more harm if the family situation does not improve with potential problems ahead relating to contact. Avoiding that is going to require work from all quarters. Whilst I do not doubt the goodwill of the family members in this case, theirs is an uphill task. If I look at how capable the relevant people are in terms of working together to meet the children's needs, I have to acknowledge the potential difficulties in the same way I did when looking at arrangements for contact.
48.	The local authority submits that it would be disproportionate to make a supervision order for more than six months but I do not agree. I do not see it as an intrusion into this family’s life, given that none of the family members see it as such. I think professional support, gradually decreasing, is what these children need if their placements are to remain secure whilst they have ongoing regular contact with their mother. I acknowledge the local authority says it would consider applying to extend the supervision orders if needed but that would result in further court proceedings with lay parties quite possibly being unrepresented. The local authority may well be prepared to go on putting in resources after six months, as the social worker says they would, but I think that need is evident now. It is my view that the supervision orders should last for a period of twelve months, that being in the children’s best interests and being a proportionate order. 
49.	The local authority also invite me to attach a condition to the supervision order requiring the mother to notify the local authority of any change in her address. Ms Astbury on the mother's behalf said she is quite willing to provide this information but attaching a condition to the supervision order is not proportionate, not least given that the children are not in C’s care. I agree with her. Every other single issue between the parties has been dealt with by way of recitals to avoid unnecessary orders and I do not see why this issue is any different.  Let me be clear that C does need to make sure the social worker knows where she is living and certainly if she does not provide this information it is not going to assist with any development in respect of contact. I am not however going to add it as a condition to the supervision order.
Orders
50.	I therefore make a child arrangements order in respect of X stating that she should live with her father and his wife. I make a special guardianship order in respect of both Y and Z in favour of F. I make a supervision order in respect of each of the three children, such orders to remain in existence for twelve months. I make an order in respect of Y, giving permission for his surname to be changed to his mother’s. Finally I make a public funding direction for all assisted parties.