No. MB17C00200
IN THE FAMILY COURT
(Sitting at Teesside)
Russell Street
Middlesbrough TS1 2AE

Friday, 28th July 2017
Before:

HIS HONOUR JUDGE BROWN
(In Private)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

B E T W E E N :

		STOCKTON BOROUGH COUNCIL	Applicant

-  and  -

		(1) M
(2) FA
		(3) FB
		(4) FC				         Respondent

ANONYMISATION APPLIES

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

Transcribed by Opus 2 International Ltd.
(Incorporating Beverley F. Nunnery & Co.)
Official Court Reporters and Audio Transcribers
5 New Street Square, London EC4A 3BF
Tel:  020 7831 5627     Fax:  020 7831 7737
civil@opus2.digital
This transcript has been approved by the Judge

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

MS E. AVERIS  (instructed by Legal Services, Stockton Borough Council)  appeared on behalf of the Applicant.

MR M. TODD (instructed by AHM Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the First Respondent.

MS J. BROWN  (instructed by Punch Robson Solicitors)  appeared on behalf of the Second Respondent.

MS C. WHYTE  (VCW Solicitors)  appeared on behalf of the Third Respondent.

MR J. CONSTABLE  (instructed by Levins Solicitors)  appeared on behalf of the Fourth Respondent.

MR J. WOODHOUSE  (FAB Solicitors)  appeared on behalf of the Children’s Guardian.

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

J U D G M E N T
If this Transcript is to be reported or published, there is a requirement to ensure that no reporting restriction will be breached. This is particularly important in relation to any case involving a sexual offence, where the victim is guaranteed lifetime anonymity (Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992), or where an order has been made in relation to a young person.
This Transcript is Crown Copyright.  It may not be reproduced in whole or in part other than in accordance with relevant licence or with the express consent of the Authority.  All rights are reserved.

JUDGE BROWN: 

1	The court is concerned with the care proceedings issued on 13th February of this year relating to three children: A, born on 14th August 2008, now 9 years and 6 months; B, born on 5th April 2011, therefore now 6 years and 3 months; and C, born on 13th July 2015, now just over 2 years old.  The mother of each of these children is M.  Each of the children have different fathers: FA is the father of A; FB is the father of B; and C’s father is FC.
2	The children currently reside with their mother subject to interim care orders and a written agreement, but the plans of the local authority, which are supported by the children’s guardian and the respective fathers of the children, are that the children are removed from the mother’s care.  I say that was the position at the beginning of the hearing.  As we know, following the indication that I gave yesterday about the outcome of the case, the children, in what can only be described as traumatic circumstances, were removed from the care of the mother and are placed in their respective placements, because it is suggested in the long-term care plan that A and B are placed together in long-term foster care, and that C is placed with her paternal aunt, PA and her partner Z, in Liverpool under a care order.  I have read an assessment of them which is universally positive.
3	An extensive schedule of contact has been provided by the local authority which envisages the reduction of the mother’s contact to monthly before a review of contact is undertaken in January of next year, at which time the local authority will review that level of contact.  Provision is made for the contact to the respective fathers.  FA and FC do not challenge the proposals for their contact.  FB does not agree that his contact should be monthly and wishes for it to remain at a more frequent level closer to what I think is the current level of two occasions per week.
4	As I have already indicated, the plan for contact has been affected, to a degree, by the events of the last 24 hours and although it may prove possible in due course to instigate this plan of contact, I have made an order under s.34(4), on an interim basis, upon the local authority’s undertaking to issue the application permitting them to refuse contact between the mother and the children until the dust settles on the events of last evening and a rational assessment of risk can be undertaken.  I will list that aspect of the case before me in two weeks’ time to review the need for the making of that order.  There is no reason, however, in all other regards that the matter cannot be finalised now in terms of placement and broad planning for the children.
5	The mother seeks to care for the children in the long-term with her partner, Y.  Y is currently not permitted to have any unsupervised contact with the children, his contact being regulated by a written agreement and an interim care plan.  This is because he has a concerning history of domestic violence.  In recent times, Y was referred to Harbour for domestic violence work but was excluded from the course after one session with it being alleged that he was being aggressive.  Both he and the mother are of the view that he poses no risk of domestic violence and it is fair to say, and I should say this out of fairness, that in the six to seven months of their relationship there have been no reports of domestic violence, but their relationship is very much in its early stages.  In relation to the local authority parenting assessment of the couple, that is negative and it is set out in a document dated, I think, 20th June of this year.
6	So these are the competing options for the court.  I have heard evidence from: the key social worker, SW1; the mother, M; X, the head teacher of the school attended by A and B; and the children’s guardian.  I have also read the documents in the bundle and the additional documents provided during the hearing.  Before I go on to consider whether the threshold criteria are satisfied under s.31 for the making of a public law order, and thereafter to consider which plan for the children is the best one from the realistic options open to the court, and what if any order should underpin the placement, it is essential for me to sketch out some background to give the case some context.
7	The mother herself came to the attention of the local authority when in the care of the maternal grandmother MGM when she herself was a child.  It is fair to say that there were significant concerns expressed about MGM care of the mother and her ability to protect her. 
8	In 2005, by which time the mother had two children of her own - D and E - concerns were being expressed about her care of those children in the context of her relationship with her then husband.  It was alleged that this relationship featured domestic violence and concerns not dissimilar to the ones raised in the current proceedings were apparent, namely issues of neglect of the children’s basic needs and poor home conditions.  The upshot of proceedings issued at this time was that the children were placed in the permanent care of their paternal grandparents.  
9	The family came to the attention of the local authority in more recent times on 7th January 2014 following a referral by the police after the mother had complained that FB had knocked her to the ground in front of A.  Mother stated the relationship was over and FB was subjected to an unlimited harassment order in respect of the mother.  The case was then closed to the local authority.
10	Further concerns were raised in February 2016.  The school made a referral due to the poor attendance of A and B.  Further, there was an anonymous referral that FB was living in the family home again despite the fact that there was a harassment order in place excluding him from contact to the mother.  This resulted in a multiagency meeting being convened on 23rd February due to concerns that the children were at risk of exposure to domestic violence.
11	On 6th March 2016 when spoken to by the police, it is recorded that the mother stated that:
“She was so down about the repeated violence that she’d been researching how to end her life.”
This alarming disclosure led to the children being placed on protection plans under the category of neglect.  
12	By the time of the first core group meeting on 24th March 2016, some improvement in school attendance as noted and by the second meeting on 26th April 2016, home conditions appear to have improved markedly.  The mother and FB were also stating now that they were on good terms but were not living together.  Unfortunately, it would appear that this uneasy truce did not last long, it being reported that FB has posted confidential information about the children from the child protection review on Facebook.  
13	On 7th July 2016, A reported to school that he had had not breakfast, that he hardly sees his mother, and that he misses her.  Once again, the perennial problem of home conditions was raised and they were described as very cluttered with piles of boxes stacked high within easy reach of C who was a very young child at this point.
14	On 13th October, the children continued to be late to school.  Home conditions were reported to continue to be very poor.
15	During a home visit on 2nd November 2016, a senior family worker had to remove a candle from a table just above C’s reach.  With hindsight, this was a particularly concerning issue bearing in mind what happened in February 2017 when the family home burned down, or was at least significantly damaged by fire.  
16	On 14th November 2016, FB reported to the local authority that he had concerns about the mother being in a relationship with a man by the name of Y.  FB stated that he believed Y used drugs and had been violent in a past relationship, and his ex-partner had had to go into a refuge.  A confirmed to professionals that Y was living at the home.  As it turned out, FB’s concerns about Y had some significant foundation.  He had children in his previous relationship which it was said had lasted for nine years.  At the end of that relationship, he assaulted that partner and in 2008 he received an 18 months suspended sentence suspended for two years following an assault on his partner.  A condition was made that he complete the integrated domestic abuse programme.  It would appear that that was not effectively finished, that Y was breached for failing to comply with the terms of the suspended sentence order, and he spent a month in prison for breach of that order.  
17	It is also recorded that Y was the subject of a non-molestation order made by the court on 19th January 2012 taken out by his ex-partner, and subsequently Y was convicted at court for breaches of this order.  It also appears to be the case that following the instigation of care proceedings relating to Y’s children, which concluded in October 2014, contact between him and his children was agreed at the level of six times a year, although Y reported in the assessment that he does not currently have any contact with his children, something for which he blames his ex-partner.
18	A legal meeting recommended a PLO meeting in the latter part of 2016 and mother was advised that unless there were improvements over four weeks then care proceedings would be issued.  It is reported that the mother refused to allow the social worker to speak to the children on her own on 30th November 2016.  A PLO meeting planned for 2nd December was rescheduled for just less than a week later on 8th December.  Mother attended and FB agreed to undertake work with Harbour but the mother refused to sign a working agreement regarding Y despite the fact that police information, which I have just referred to above, revealed a significant concern about domestic abuse perpetrated by Y in the context of his previous relationship.
19	A further legal meeting took place and it was noted that home conditions continued to be very poor and the children were making no progress in respect of school attendance.  Mother’s willingness to comply with requirements or to cooperate with the local authority continued to be poor, refusing to adhere to a working agreement about Y.  However, to be fair to her, it appears in the initial stages she engaged with Harbour and was also expressing a willingness to start the Freedom course.  Although a further PLO meeting was held around that time, the parents were informed because of the fact that insufficient progress had been made that care proceedings were likely to be issued.  
20	On 6th January, the mother, by this point, was saying that she would adhere to a working agreement regarding Y and, once again, her home conditions had improved.  That was not the position throughout the house.  It is said that upstairs home conditions remained poor, the house remained cluttered, and there was as heavy smell of smoke.  Worryingly, the mother refused to allow the social worker to see the children alone and there were still regular reports being provided by the school expressing concern about the children, particularly with regard to their appearance, but also their attendance, primarily about regular lateness but also, as far as A was concerned, him missing school altogether.
21	On 16th January, the social worker alleged, in breach of the written agreement, that Y was seen to enter the house.  The mother denied this but it would appear that she refused to allow the social worker into the house to look around to see whether this was the case.  Further, FA, the father of A, reported that Y had been at the house when he collected A the week before, again apparently breaching the intention of the written agreement.
22	On 20th January, concerns were once again raised by the school that the children complained that they were hungry.  It was said that the children had attended school appearing very dirty, B smelled heavily of tobacco, and the children reported that Y sometimes stayed at the property.  Once again, the mother refused to cooperate with the social worker and refused to give consent to the children being seen at school but said they could be seen at home in her presence.  When the social worker visited the home, it is said that there was plenty of food in the house but, once again, home conditions had deteriorated.  The social worker reported as well that Y’s car was seen outside the home.  However, again, no permission was given by the mother to the social worker to see what the position was and whether, in fact, Y was in the house.
23	So on 20th January 2017, a parenting skills observation report was prepared and provided by the local authority and in its conclusions, which are set out in the bundle at C62 onwards, there were a number of matters of concern raised.  In summary, they were as follows.  Firstly, it was suggested that there was an initial reluctance on the mother’s part to engage in the assessment at all.  After some persuasion, the mother changed her mind.  Secondly, there was very little evidence to suggest that the family had regular routines in place and also that any approaches to the children’s routine was either chaotic, inconsistent, or in the social worker’s view non-existent.  Concern was expressed about the regular late arrival at school and the poor morning routines that the children had.  Thirdly, it was also said that hygiene routines in the house were inconsistent and there was no evidence of the children regularly washing on a consistent basis or having a regular routine of brushing their teeth.  It is suggested that the mother lacked insight into the children’s nutritional needs during the assessment and it was felt that the mother’s general attitude to the local authority and the school was obstructive.  
24	On 26th January, due to the concerns about the school attendance of A in particular, an attendance conference took place at school.  It is reported that the mother was cautioned about this and the education officer expressed concern about the school’s attendance, but also about the manner in which the mother spoke to the children and sought to shift the blame from herself to them for their poor attendance and their lateness.  The next day, on another unplanned visit, once again Y’s car was noted to be outside the house and, again, the mother would not allow the social worker into the house to look around.  
25	On 30th January, during an unplanned visit, once again home conditions were noted to have deteriorated despite the mother requesting that C was placed in nursery for additional time.  Again, the mother refused to allow the social worker access to any room other than the living room and it really is against this escalating pattern of concern that the local authority decided that enough was enough and that it was likely to be necessary to issue care proceedings.
26	On 16th February, a serious incident took place at the family home.  A serious house fire occurred which resulted in the hospitalisation of each of the children, the mother, and the maternal grandmother.  The damage to the property was extensive and the family were temporarily placed in temporary accommodation.  Police investigation indicated that there appeared to be two or three seats of fire which they indicated would be highly suspicious of arson.  It was understood that B had a lighter and may have set fire to a cuddly toy.  
27	Four days after the fire, the mother requested, on 20th February, that Y be allowed to stay with her at the accommodation at St James’ Hostel but, again, for reasons which are entirely understandable due to the relatively recent nature of this relationship and the concerning history of domestic violence which attached to Y, the local authority said ‘no’.
28	On the same day, X, the head teacher, attended the hostel to collect the children to take them to school.  She expressed concerns about the smokiness of the room and it appeared that the maternal grandmother had been smoking in bed.  However, it is said that, on that occasion, the mother refused to allow B to go to school saying that another girl at the school had been responsible for telling B that, “Fire gets rid of everything.”  In any event, the children were taken to school.  When they got there, it is said that they were hungry and they had not eaten.  
29	Later that day, during a meeting at Social Services, the mother and Y stated that they were moving out of the accommodation that night and that they would move into a property together.  They would not disclose where that would be but indicated it would be in Ireland where they knew, “Social care could not pursue them.”  Faced with this serious threat, the local authority was left with no choice, it would appear, other than to issue an application for the immediate removal of the children.  The contested hearing for interim removal came before Deputy Circuit Judge Dowse.  The local authority, however, did not pursue this application at this stage on the basis that the mother agreed to cooperate and a written agreement, which is encapsulated in the bundle at B35, was appended to the case management order made at that time.
30	Care proceedings having been issued, a case management hearing took place on 7th March before Recorder Campbell.  At that time, what had hitherto been an informal arrangement was formalised with the learned judge insisting on the making of interim care orders and it was agreed that the mother would retain the care of the children but, again, subject to an amended working agreement.  It is perhaps helpful to consider the recitals made in the order by the learned judge on 7th March and recital 1 read as follows:
“The court having expressed grave concerns regarding the welfare of the children and the continuing failure of M to fully comply with the written agreement which was annexed to the order dated 21st February 2017 and the need for the local authority to share parental responsibility for the children.”
31	Item 3, the learned recorder made it clear as follows that:
“The court stated to M that in order for her children to remain in her care, both in the interim and the long-term, it was essential that she adhered fully with the written agreement annexed to this order and that she works cooperatively with all professionals, and that she obtains and accepts all the help which she needs to assist her.”
If prior to this, which I do not accept, the mother had not been clear what was required, it was crystal clear now.  
32	The case was timetabled to a final hearing at that hearing which was to proceed before me and has proceeded before for three days this week commencing on Wednesday, 26th July.  
33	On 21st March, the local authority once again issued an application for an urgent hearing seeking removal alleging that, once again, the mother was in breach of the written agreement.  A chronology and a statement prepared for the hearing listed the following matters of concern:
(1)	That A had missed school on 6th March as a result of a concussion having been involved an altercation with another child;
(2)	During direct work, it was alleged B reported the mother had told B directly that FB had knocked the mother’s teeth out;
(3)	10th March 2017, the mother had received, it is said, a number of letters suggesting the children should attend looked after child medicals, but the mother refused saying it was not necessary;
(4)	FB alleged that Y was outside the family home and he had breached the order by being there;
(5)	The school was raising concerns again about B being tired and unkempt, not brushing her teeth, and that her face was dirty.  Also, that B had not had breakfast and her homework was not done; and
(6)	On 21st March, the school reported that Y had reported the mother over the weekend, or that was what the children had told them.
34	On 23rd March at an interim hearing before Her Honour Judge Hallam, the learned judge adjourned the case for a contested hearing which took place on 31st March.  The working agreement was further amended and, once again, removal was not pursued on 31st March.  At this hearing, a single foster placement was not available for the children.  Any placement that was available, I think, was out of the area and, in those circumstances, the children’s guardian did not support remove despite expressing her concern about the ongoing level of risk presented to these children.  Following this hearing, tensions clearly remained high.  The maternal grandmother indicated that she was going to start recording the social worker’s visits to the home.  
35	A further unfortunate incident occurred on 3rd April.  It is noted at nursery that C had bruising on the back of her legs.  Following consultation with the police, it was thought appropriate for a s.47 inquiry to be instigated and for a medical examination to take place.  There is dispute about what happened next with the mother alleging the social worker had made little or no efforts to contact her before taking the child for a medical whereas the social worker suggested that despite extensive efforts, she could not get hold of the mother, even directly or through the maternal grandmother, and having waited at nursery for a short while to see if the mother could be contacted or would turn up, they set off for the hospital having sent another social worker, SW2, to collect the mother from the children’s school.  
36	What happened next from the perspective of the local authority is recorded in a chronology and bearing in mind what is alleged to have ensued last evening, it is perhaps instructive to consider this recording.  It is said that the duty social worker, SW2, attended School A to transport M to North Tees hospital.  As the worker approached the school, she was informed that M had left to go for C at Nursery A, which is the nursery.  The two older children were in school.  The social worker, SW2, then went to the nursery on Address A.  As she pulled into the car park, M was running towards the door.  She was screaming to someone one the phone, “They’ve took my kids.”  The social worker introduced herself to M who was screaming at her saying follows:
“If one hair on her head has been touched, you’ll be losing your jobs.  You have kidnapped my baby.”
37	It is alleged that the mother then went on to say, “We had sexually abused her child.”  It is reported that SW attempted to reason with M and M did calm down a bit.  However, M was keen to make the point that SW1, the key social worker in this case, was in her words “finished” after this.  M then fled the car and ran down Address A.  The social worker and the head teacher attempted to explain to the children why they were still in school.  A gave an explanation as to the fact that the previous day, C had fallen on a toy.
38	Later the same, the social workers were at the outpatient’s department with C.  The paediatrician, Mr Rampaul, advised that he would not commence a medical until the mother had also arrived.  M did arrive, she was with Y, and was extremely angry.  It is reported that she was pointing repeatedly in SW1’s face telling her, “How she had her job and she was done with me.”  Y stayed back from the room and shouted, “M.”  When M continued to be aggressive threatening to the worker, Y attempted to prevent her.  M was reminded by workers that C was present but this did not calm M down:
“M was incredibly angry and shouted she didn’t know ‘what the fuck SW1’s problem was’ and that the worker ‘must be sexually frustrated’ and ‘needed something up her’.”
M went on to say she was:
“...having SW1 done for assault as she knew her rights and because she had looked into training as a police officer.” 
39	The medical took place and it is said that the mother then waited outside the hospital room for the doctor.  During the time on the corridor, M stated to workers that they had assaulted C by transporting her to hospital and M then stated this was basically sexual assault.  Whilst still at the hospital, M, it would appear, was asked whether she would consent to blood tests or photographs being taken, the doctor explaining why this would be necessary.  M refused to do so.
40	Later that afternoon, M went to the children’s school and was said still to be in what is described as a very aggressive and highly agitated mood.  M was asked to calm down on several occasions.  She was unable to do so and she left the building.  The whole while, it is recorded the mother, M, was at the school and she talked about, “Knowing loads of stuff about SW1” and that, “You would not believe what I know.”  She threatened the school with legal action and attempted to talk to the local councillor.  She is alleged to have continued saying in the direction of SW1, “I’ll have her job.  She is a sexual abuser” and said that she stated that if anybody touched C, she would have them for sexual abuse.
41	On 11th April, it was recorded that the maternal grandmother said that there were ongoing problems with the parties’ neighbours.  I should say that the family had moved to Address B from their previous address in February.  It was alleged that neighbours were playing music all hours and the family were not sleeping well, something which A made mention of at school on 18th April when he was once again late.  This coincided with the school reporting that A was 18 to 24 months behind his peers and his attendance level had dipped to 82 percent.  Further, although B was on track to meet her targets, her lateness was affecting her progress as well.  It was also noted on 11th April that Y had been asked to leave a session with Harbour due to his level of aggression.
42	On 25th April, the mother drew to the local authority’s attention an altercation that had taken place with the mother’s next-door neighbours during which it was alleged that Y, who she says had met the mother away from the home so not to breach the requirement that he did not live there, became involved when a neighbour produced a knife, an argument which seemed to have ensued about graffiti that had been placed in the neighbourhood about the mother.  This episode was witnessed by the children who reported it to the school the next day.  They talked of being scared.  B reported that A was crying.  A subsequent conversation with a neighbour indicated that Y himself had been very aggressive and had also issued threats.  In light of what the local authority perceived to be yet another incident of potential serious risk to the children, it was thought and the local authority sought a further hearing to consider interim removal of the children.
43	The matter was further adjourned to 5th May for a contested hearing before Her Honour Judge Matthews QC, the designated family judge.  Mindful, no doubt, of the high hurdle needed to sanction removal at an interim stage and also taking account of the impending nature of the final hearing, the children’s guardian once again, on fine balance, did not support removal, but her reasoning as set out in the position statement filed for this hearing is revealing.  She said as follows:
“There is a considerable volume of evidenced building of M’s unwillingness to prioritise the welfare of her children and to work cooperatively with the local authority and other professionals.  She appears, at times, to exhibit extreme hostility to them and this appears to be fuelled by other family members.”
44	The guardian accepts that some of the evidence from the local authority against M’s care of the children should properly await determination at a final hearing and would not justify the high test of interim removal.  The guardian was reassured, to an extent, by the social work visits and the oversight of the family, however poorly received by M, and the existence of an interim care order, which enables the local authority to exercise its parental responsibility, is also a matter of consolation.  However, she went on:
“Having visited the family home, the guardian has a real concern that the basic care needs of these children, as well as their emotional needs, are not being adequately met.  The interim care order, as well as the working agreement, need to be effective if the children are to be properly safeguarded.”
45	The guardian raised the issue as to whether further support could be put into the home.  Examples were given of outreach support for the children to be taken on activities and for them to engage in after school clubs.  It was also felt appropriate by the guardian at that time that contact should take place for C with her relatives in Liverpool for a number of reasons, not least being the ability to assess the realistic option of placement with those family members should the children be removed from the mother’s care.  The guardian concluded by saying as follows that she wished to emphasise that she fully shared the concerns of the local authority and was disappointed by the failure of the mother to have insight into the concerns and to act appropriately to stop the neglectful and harmful care provided by her to the children.
46	Thus, once again, on what appears to have been a final balance, interim removal was not sanctioned.  A further engagement which was required from the mother was recorded in the recitals to the order made on 5th May and the children remained in the care of the mother.  I should say that despite, it would appear, suggestions being made to the mother about the children being taken out by family support workers perhaps joining these clubs, the mother’s reaction this was one of total opposition and, unfortunately, none of this extra support appeared to get off the ground due to her opposition.
47	So that was the last time the matter came to court prior to the issues resolution hearing in front of me a week and a half ago, but the local authority contends in its most up to date evidence that little had changed and the mother’s attitude remained the same.  The local authority filed a chronology updating the court in relation to matters which had occurred in the weeks preceding this hearing.
48	It was noted on 23rd June that the children were visited, that is B and A, at school.  The reason for this visit was that both children disclosed to the school in clear terms that it would appear the mother and the maternal grandmother regarded it as appropriate to share the contents of the final care plans with the children, the children reporting that both MGM and the mother were crying at the time.  At the same visit, it was noted again that B’s messy and untidy.  She was dirty and looked tired.  Three days later, X, the head teacher at the school, contacted the local authority alleging that another parent at the school had reported an altercation between the mother and MGM.  
49	On 28th June, there was an episode, which I will deal with later in the judgment when discussing X’s evidence, where M failed to return the consent form for A’s school trip and the school was unable to contact M as she had refused to give them a telephone number.  A was reported to be extremely upset.  I should say in evidence that M attempted to explain to me why she was not prepared to give numbers to the local authority or the school.  I was unable to follow the reasoning and the only explanation I can find was that she was just being, for want of a better expression, plain awkward.
50	On 3rd July, M was asked whether she had taken A to the doctors since, by this point, A had a problem with vomiting which had persisted.  He had been taken to the doctor’s in March but the mother had failed to follow this up and said that she had not taken A to the doctors at that point.  Similarly, because B was looking pale, it was suggested that she should be taken to the doctors for repeat blood tests.  That had not happened.  It was also clear as well that none of the children were being taken to the dentist and, finally, an unplanned visit to the mother on 13th July when the mother and MGM were present, a regular theme was noted that, once again, with no concern for the fact the children were present, M and MGM talked openly about the court proceeding.  It is recorded that the mother is said to have stated to the local authority, “You can have these two but you’re not getting her,” “these two” I assume referring to B and A and “her” referring to C.  It is said that both children were present although admittedly running in and out of the house at the time.
51	The matter was before me for the issues resolution hearing on 20th July at which it is alleged that there was further bad feeling on this occasion involving FB.
52	So I should say that also received from the school was an update as to the children’s progress in the months of June and July.  I will address this information in more detail when I discuss X’s evidence, but it is fair to say it painted a pretty grim picture and that little had changed from the earlier reports of the school, and the position of the children, as far as the school were concerned, was desperate.  
53	So this is the chronic background of reported concern against which the court must make its decision.  The legal principles which apply in deciding this case can be summarised as follows.  The local authority seeks a care order and, before deciding whether to make a care order, there is a two-stage approach.  I must first determine that the threshold criteria under s.31 are satisfied for the making of a public law order.  In reaching that decision, I must base my conclusion on facts.  If any of the facts are disputed, I determine them on the balance of probabilities and if I decide that a fact is proved, the court proceeds on the basis that the event happened.  If I am not so satisfied, the court ignores those events.  I am entitled to take account of hearsay evidence, but I must be wary of its provenance and consider its reliability and potential for such accounts to be distorted and unreliable.  Once threshold is established, I must then turn my attention to the question of what, if any, orders are necessary to meet the welfare needs of these three children.  In this case, the local authority contends that the court should make care orders.  The care plan under the care orders is placement of A together with B in local foster care placement and to place C with her paternal aunt and her partner in Liverpool under a care order.
54	When making the decision in these circumstances, the court must bear in mind the matters set out in s.1(1) and s.1(3) of the Children Act 1989 and, of course, remember that it is the welfare of the children which is always the court’s paramount concern.  When determining the appropriate care plan for the children, I must evaluate the realistic options open to the court by placing them side by side and deciding which option will meet the children’s welfare needs.  
55	So turning firstly then to the threshold, this is a case in which there has been significant concessions on the threshold criteria and they are as follows.  In the document which I have been provided with, it is reported that the mother accepts this:
(a)	Regarding her relationship with FB:
(i)	That there was a history of domestic violence during their relationship and a harassment order was made in her favour on 8th August 2014 as a consequence of a domestic violence incident on 7th April 2014 when FB assaulted her, which A witnessed and when she was knocked unconscious;
(ii)	Whilst initially the relationship ended, they subsequently reconciled whilst the harassment order was still in force and in May 2016, she applied to discharge it; and
(iii)	The children have witnessed violence and/or verbal disputes between herself, FB, and the maternal grandmother.
(b)	Regarding their education:
(i)	A and B have sporadic attendance at school;
(ii)	They have been late frequently for school;
(iii)	The children have attended school smelling of smoke and they have attended with dirty clothing; and
(iv)	An attendance conference took place on 26th January 2017 and the mother was cautioned.
(c)	Her, the mother’s, mental health:
(i)	On 6th March, she told a police officer that she felt down and she had been researching how to end her life; and
(ii)	During a meeting on 12th July 2016 regarding the children’s school attendance, she became agitated and said she felt suicidal.
(d)	Inappropriate adult decision-making:
(i)	She allowed A, aged 9 years, to play games suitable for 15-year olds and 18-year olds;
(ii)	She discussed with A and B the care proceedings and caused them to worry.
(e)	Home conditions were untidy and on 27th September, the home was very cluttered and boxes stacked very high, which posed a risk to C.  On 20th January 2017, the upstairs was a mess such that she refused to allow the social worker in to the house;
(f)	She has refused to sign a working agreement stating that Y should not have contact with the children until an assessment has been undertaken.  She has continued to allow him to have contact with the children despite her being aware that:
(i)	He has a significant history of domestic violence with his partner;
(ii)	There is an indefinite restraining order against him in favour of that partner; and
(iii)	During 2001 to 2011 there were 20 incidents of domestic violence reported between Y and his partner, and during one of those it is alleged he punched his partner in the head whilst holding their baby.
(g)	On 29th November 2016, she said that she would not work with a social worker.  She cancelled an arranged parenting assessment and she allowed contact between the children and Y on 8th December 2016.
56	The concessions made by FB on the threshold are set out under main paragraph 2 in which FB accepts the following:
(a)	That there was domestic violence in the relationship with the mother on 8th August 2014 and a harassment order made in her favour due to an incident on 7th January 2014 when he assaulted the mother and she was knocked unconscious;
(b)	He was convicted of robbery on 13th December 2014 and sentenced to 22 months’ imprisonment.  On his release, he reconciled with the mother despite a harassment order being in place;
(c)	He did not comply with the terms of the harassment order or his licence conditions, namely not to have contact with the mother or the children;
(d)	He has not engaged with the support services;
(e)	26th November 2016, a verbal dispute took place with the maternal grandmother in the presence of B; and
(f)	The children have witnessed verbal disputes; an incident at school which led to the harassment order being made.
57	These concessions, to my mind, amply satisfy the threshold criteria under s.31 of the Children Act 1989 and paint a picture of children who were, at the time of the issue of these proceedings, being exposed to domestic violence.  Their basic care needs had been neglected, schooling was not prioritised, and the mother had, once again, entered a relationship with a man with a history of domestic violence and she failed to accept the inherent issues and risks presented by her relationship with this individual.  The findings are, in any event, supported by the wealth of information contained in the court bundle.
58	Thus, being satisfied that the threshold under s.31 of the Children Act 1989 is crossed, I shall turn to my welfare analysis with the realistic welfare options open to the children.  Before balancing the pros and cons of each option, first I must address certain factual issues which are relevant and the local authority has particularised for the court to consider.
59	During the course of the hearing, I have indicated that in that schedule there are matters which I regard as either irrelevant or unsupported by evidence and I will address them in turn in a moment.  A number of these factual matters are disputed by the mother and therefore I will have to determine them, but I will only determine those factual matters which I regard as relevant to my overall decision.  In doing so and in reaching my factual conclusions, I have had to weigh up the evidence which I have heard.  On the main issues of factual dispute, I heard from the social worker, SW1; the head teacher, X; and the mother.  
60	The mother gave evidence before me.  She was very upset and I do not doubt that she is terrified at the prospect of the removal of the children.  I also do not doubt that she loves the children.  All that said, I did find her evidence very troubling.  She appeared to exhibit little or no insight into the reasons for the children’s current predicament.  She appeared fixated by the idea that the social worker and the school were involved in a vendetta against her.  When I asked her why this may be, she indicated that the social worker was intent on giving her children to someone else.  She said, “I have three amazing children.  Anyone will snap them up.”  Her evidence left me with no confidence whatsoever that she would cooperate or constructively work with professionals in the future, something which would be essential if the children were to remain in her care.  This, coupled with her lack of insight, makes a future repetition of current and past failings highly likely to my mind.  
61	Above accepting that FB had been violent to her and that this could have affected the children, in evidence she found it hard to accept any responsibility for the matters raised as concerns by the local authority or the school.  She pointed to the alleged constant questioning of the children by the school and the social worker as the reasons for the children’s demeanour and poor appearance, and, in particular, as an explanation for the daily vomiting of A.  I find on the evidence that I have heard that it is her inability to shield the children from the conflict caused by her battle with the professionals, instigated frankly mainly by her, which is highly likely to be either the cause or, if not the cause, a major contributory factor in A’s current presentation.
62	There are several examples of her inability to control her behaviour in the presence of the children.  I find the episode on 3rd April 2017 at the hospital which I have referred to in some detail, and later at the school, to be a good example of her inability to exercise self-control when in the presence of the children.  Even making due allowance for her upset, what she said to the social worker and others when C was perched on her hip was totally unacceptable.  What is more, the content which I found to be accurately recorded indicates a first for conflict and confrontation, one which does not bode well for future cooperation.  I am reinforced in this finding by the events of last evening, or yesterday afternoon when attempts were made to remove these children.  Even in making all due allowance also for the trauma of that event, I am afraid the reported behaviour of the mother is entirely consistent with what I find to be her general character.
63	As far as 25th April is concerned, I am unable to reach any conclusions about what happened or who was to blame for this altercation involving Y and the neighbour.  All I would say is whoever was to blame, it was another volatile episode to which these children were exposed.  
64	I also find that the mother’s relationship with MGM is volatile, which is concerning, since she also appears to play an integral role in the children’s care.  Rather than ameliorating the mother’s attitude, MGM, frankly, does appear to fan the flames.  Once again, I note that MGM has been banned from the children’s school and if the reports of yesterday are right as well, she appears to have behaved in an entirely inappropriate and out of control way when the children were being removed.
65	I accept the evidence that, on 23rd July, the mother openly discussed the content of the care plan with the children which heightened the children’s anxiety.  She was unable to explain satisfactorily why she had not taken the children to the dentist, why she had not followed up the concerns about B’s appearance by arranging blood tests recommended by the doctor, nor why she had not taken A to the GP for further follow up with continued vomiting after his first appointment in March, the vomiting which was now an almost daily occurrence.  Her explanation appeared largely to be that she knew best.  The upshot was that potential concerns relating to the children’s basic health needs were not addressed or appropriately investigated.  
66	Bearing in mind the history of domestic violence in her relationship with FB, her attitude to her relationship with Y is also a significant matter of concern.  Y is a man with a serious conviction for domestic violence.  In addition, he is the subject of a non-molestation order which appears to be unlimited in time, which he has breached on a number of occasions.  In recent times, he has been asked to leave the Harbour domestic violence programme meeting due to an aggressive approach to the workers running the course.  The evidence of the mother indicated to me that she unquestioningly accepted Y’s version of events which was that, in effect, all the allegations made by his former partner were lies and that he presented no risk at all.  Despite this, the mother continues to express her commitment to this relationship.  I find that this displays a worrying lack of judgment on her part.  Her focus should be on issues relating to the children, but her unwillingness to consider the wisdom of continuing this relationship and her insistence that Y is involved displays, to my mind, poor judgment and an unwillingness to prioritise these children.
67	In the terms of the evidence of X, I had the benefit of reading two reports from her.  In addition to this, I heard her give oral evidence.  I found her to be an impressive witness.  She is a teacher of some 26 years’ experience working mainly in schools in certain parts of Teesside where issues of child protection are regularly encountered.  She, to my mind, painted a harrowing picture of these children.  I refer to her statements starting firstly with the statement at C137 in the bundle, the contents of which, along with the subsequent statement at C228, I accept unreservedly as being accurate.  In the statement of 3rd May she said that she had been the head teacher since 2014 and she said:
“My very serious concerns for the welfare of these children have been there from the start.  I would be happy to stand up in court and defend the school’s very well-informed position on this.  We see them every day.  This puts us in a better position than most to comment accurately on the welfare of these children being advocate for both the children.  The parental agreement [I think she means the written agreement] put in place in March has had little impact in improving the welfare of the children.  A and B have always been a serious concern to us.”
68	She goes on that she had written to other professionals recording concerns.  She said that the children often appear unkempt and present as exhausted:
“I have witnessed A falling asleep in a lesson.  His level of concentration is very poor and due to his persistent absenteeism and lateness, he often looks bewildered and confused.  We have attempted to put structures and interventions in place to help A close gaps in learning, but he misses too many.  His homework is also structured to fill in gaps.  This is rarely completed.  We have photocopies of the teachers’ reports showing mum’s lack of engagement.  We have requested meetings but we have had no response.  The punctuality problems have not improved.  The mum blames disputes with the neighbours.  Staff have witnessed mum openly discussing her ongoing dispute with Children’s Services to parents in the playground and often in the presence of the children.  Some parents have expressed their concern to me about what mum is saying.
The mother can be extremely abusive and extremely rude when challenged, making personal attacks on myself and threatening to ‘release information’ that she has on me.  The grandmother, MGM, her behaviour has also been acceptable and, again, she has behaved extremely inappropriately in the presence of all of the children.  On one occasion, the grandmother attempted to upturn furniture in the school hall.  The behaviour of the adults in the lives of the children is very inappropriate.  Their level of abuse and chaos has no filter and often B and A, and other children are present when they are at their most abusive to each other and to other adults.  In the past, the mother has asked professionals within the school to lie to Social Services when they are completing their investigations.  School has collected the children and brought them to school on numerous occasions.  We have sent texts, made wake-up calls, offered mum alarm clocks, and offered free places at breakfast club.  A has started to make himself sick at school.  He looked particularly worried and shaken the day after the fight with the neighbour.  A believed a knife was used.”
69	She went on to say that concerns had been raised about the school questioning the children.  She said that the school is aware about this but want to reassure the court that it does not happen.  They follow their training and they have been made aware of this.  She concluded as follows:
“A is a failing child.  He is two years behind his peers and the gap is widening.  We have asked the mother to support us but, again, mother will not do this and it is only as far as B is concerned being since FB has been directly involved that any effective completion of homework tasks has, in fact, happened.”
70	The updated report, dated 10th July, shows that little has changed.  It is said that:
“A has made extremely slow progress.  He is showing the worst progress for any child in the school.  There is absolutely no support from home despite frequent appeals and the peer gap is widening.  A and B are now displaying physical signs of stress and anxiety and long-term neglect.  A now vomits on an almost daily basis.  Professionals suspect this is self-induced.  A has the worst statutory attendance of any child in the school.  A and B’s punctuality is also the worst in the school.  They are regularly late by more than 40 minutes.  This week, A was very distressed because his mum had not returned the consent form for his school trip.  Despite numerous calls, she did not answer the phone.  We had to release staff to go to the family home to gain verbal consent.  Mum seemed to blame A for this.  She was not willing to share her new phone number when asked.  B was the only child who attended the school trip wearing her uniform.  This may seem insignificant but it was a huge treat for a child to wear non-uniform for school.”
71	She concluded as follows:
“A and B are spectacularly crashing before our eyes.  Since the last court hearing, things have deteriorated further.  There has been no improvement from the school’s perspective.”
72	These reports paint a harrowing and heart-rending picture of the ordeal that these children are currently suffering.  I choose that word advisedly.  In her oral evidence, X confirmed what she had said in her final statement about the poor attendance.  She said that A is now classed as having special educational needs because he is two years behind in terms of attainment.  She was clear that this has nothing to do with his innate ability but due to the failure of the mother to ensure prompt attendance and thus affecting his learning.  She reinforced all the efforts that school had made to ensure that A came to school, or came on time when with B, and referred again to the sending of texts, alarm clocks bought for the family, and staff going around to their home to collect the children.  As far as B was concerned, she said although her attendance was good, her punctuality was very poor and, once again, this significantly impacted on her learning.  She was a bright girl would could attain much more and she was clear that B continued to attend looking unkempt without her hair brushed and in dirty clothes.
73	I have referred to the issue in relation to the mother’s attitude to staff, but she gave further information about the impact of the mother’s failure to support the children.  She said the children were sent to school without their glasses, and the matters as far as A were concerned had reached such a pitch that in order to avoid embarrassment for A, the teacher had stopped asking classes for homework by shouting out the child’s name and collected the work discretely to avoid A being ashamed of the fact that he had not done the work that had been requested.  The school was clear that the mother openly discussed the matter with the children and I have already referred to what I find to be an accurate recording of A and B’s disclosure on 23rd June.  Although the mother had attended a parents’ evening on one occasion, her general engagement with the school was poor.  She had been invited, on numerous occasions, to attend a more detailed discussion with staff with parents who were causing concern called “structured conversations.”  She failed to attend.
74	I have already dealt with the peculiar refusal by the mother to provide a direct telephone number and her explanation, which still remains unfathomable to me.  This lack of direct communication caused regular problems and the court was told the highly upsetting tale of how A nearly missed the school trip.  It is referred to in the statement, so I do not repeat it here, but no-one can fail to have been affected by the teacher’s description of hearing A from her office crying loudly as if in pain.
75	X was at a loss to know what else could be done.  They had said they had tried everything and they could not offer any more, suggesting the only thing that could be offered would be a one to one tutor for A, but that would not deal with the broader problems.  A was described as tired and bewildered and B was also described as being tired and drawn.
76	It was put to X that the reason that A was not wanting to come to school was that the school was constantly questioning him and this led to him not wanting to go to school.  She accepted that she did ask A questions but only when they were matters of concern which obligated her to make sure things were all right.  She refuted that A was constantly put under pressure.  
77	I had a good opportunity to look at the entries in the CPOMS system which were filed, an opportunity, I am sure, which Judge Hallam did not have when she expressed an opinion of concern in March.  I have also had the benefit of considering directly the evidence of X and her explanation.  I do not feel that she overstepped the mark.  I reject the notion that the questioning was persistent and inappropriate, or that this was the reason that this child was reluctant to attend school, or the reason for him being sick on a regularly basis.  I accept the evidence of X as to the circumstances of the children.  I find that the intervention of the school was entirely appropriate and the concerns expressed legitimate.  Rather than overstepping the mark, I find that the approach of this school and this head teacher were exemplary and the actions of the school were entirely justified in the light of the obvious and persistent concerns and the inability and unwillingness of the mother to address them.  Their actions were motivated, from start to finish, by a wish to make things better for these children, children who they saw as failing in all regards and being neglected to a most significant degree.
78	In so far as the evidence of SW1, the key social worker, was concerned, I found her to be a balanced witness as well in the light of what can only be described as significant provocation from the mother.  I accept her evidence that the local authority attempted to engage with the mother and were prepared to offer support but were unable to even discuss these issues with the mother due to a failure to engage with the local authority in any meaningful way.  Attempts were made to offer support to take the children out and to help to arrange appointments for the children with health professionals, all of which were rejected by the mother.  
79	So those are broad findings I make in relation to the mother.  Looking at the specific welfare findings, I reach the following conclusions that the headings set out were broadly made out, which was that: the children have been exposed to frightening adult behaviour whilst in the mother’s care; that the children have been exposed to adult matters by her which have caused an anxiety; that she has failed to meet the basic needs of the children, including giving them breakfast consistently and ensuring they attend school at all or promptly; and failing to ensure that the children have had their health needs met on a consistent basis or that she has ensured they have attended appropriate appointments with health professionals.  It is clear to me as well that she has demonstrated a total inability to work with professionals, or to accept or act upon professional advice, and she clearly cannot regulate her emotions in the presence of the children placing them in situation where they suffer distress. 
80	In terms of the specific incidents under subparagraph (c), the frightening adult behaviour, I accept that on 24th March 2014, there was an incident involving FB, the mother, and the maternal grandmother in the presence of the children.  On 24th April, there was this incident involving a knife at which the children were present.
81	At (d), under the heading, “Inappropriate discussions with the children in inappropriate adult actions,” I accept what B said which was that she refused to go to contact because her mother, not her, said that she did not want to go.  I accept this is more likely than not the case.
82	On 9th March, I accept what B said which was that it was her mother who told B this, not something that B volunteered herself.
83	Subparagraph (3), I accept once again the mother contacted the social worker in the presence of B and revealed that FB was coming around with a brick and he was talking B.  I accept this happened in the presence of this child.  
84	Item (4), I accept that B said she did not want to see her father and that her mother had not been telling the truth.  I accept this as being a true recording of what B said and a reflection of the mother’s attempt to influence B with her own views.  
85	As far as the education matters are concerned, I find that each of those is made out in light of the specific findings I have made when discussing the evidence of X.  That is under item (g).
86	In terms of supervision, the only matter there is, I think, that B did cut C’s hair probably down to a lack of supervision.
87	The health needs of the children, that is item (i); mother received three letters regarding the three children having looked after medicals and she was not taking them as she said there were no health needs.  I accept that is the case.  I have already dealt with the incident at the hospital on 30th April and that the mother was reluctant to cooperate with that medical, particularly when asked to agree to the children having blood tests taken.  I find that it is true that on 4th April, the mother said she was taking C out of nursery because of the fact that they had made a report about the bruising the previous day.  I accept and indeed the mother appears to accept that she would not take B to the walk-in centre when B was reporting that she had some soreness in her genital area.  The mother said she thought it was not necessary. 
88	As far as working with professionals, being honest, and accepting advice, I accept items (1) and (3) in that A did say that he spoke to Y.  I must say, although there is no real suggestion that this was, in fact, a breach of the agreement, there is no indication in that finding that, in fact, Y was in the house.
89	As far as item (3) is concerned, the fact that Y had visited the mother over the weekend and that the mother went to talk to him in the car, I think it is more likely than not that the mother had talked to him in his car.  I cannot go any further than that.
90	Item (5), the maternal grandmother recording the social work visit; this appears to be accepted.
91	Item (6), the mother confirmed, apparently, that she intended to continue to record the social work visits.  I find that is probably more likely than not.
92	As far as items (7) and (8), I have already addressed those under another heading.
93	As far as item (9) is concerned, I am not prepared to make a finding about what B said about Y staying regularly in the house.  I do not think there is enough information for me to make that finding.
94	So those are the factual matters determined by me, in the specific sense and in the broad sense, set out prior to that about the evidence of the mother and the evidence of X.  
95	The realistic options open to the children therefore are placement at home with the mother; placement in foster care; or, in so far as C is concerned, placement with her paternal aunt in Liverpool under a care order.  Looking at a placement with the mother, clearly this has the advantage of ensuring that the children remain together and that they are brought up by their mother with all the benefits that this has in terms of identity.  The clear disadvantages of such a placement are that the neglect of the children’s basic needs will persist and that they will be exposed to the volatile uncertain atmosphere which persisted for some time whilst in the care of the mother and they will be placed at risk of potential further exposure to domestic violence due to the history of Y who has not addressed his concerning past behaviour through appropriate work with professionals.
96	Placement of A and B in foster; this has the advantage of protecting the children from the significant harm they have undoubtedly suffered, as a result of my findings, whilst living at home due to the neglect of their basic needs, and exposure to domestic violence and volatility, by ensuring that their basic needs are met on a consistent basis in foster care. 
97	The disadvantage of this approach is that it will mean separation from their mother and since the plan is to place C elsewhere, from her as well.  I accept that C is close to her mother and close to her siblings, particularly her siblings who, I find, feel a responsibility towards their youngest sibling due to the home circumstances in which they lived.  The children have expressed a desire to remain at home and, unfortunately, as a result of the mother’s willingness to discuss the plans of the local authority openly with them in an emotive way, they now have a fear of removal and placement in foster care.  The events of yesterday prove that, unfortunately, the undoubted trauma of separation was made more acute by the actions of the mother, Y, and the maternal grandmother.
98	I should say, set against that there are the normal disadvantages of foster care, namely its potentially transient nature, its susceptibility to challenge by further court proceedings, and the intrusion into the children’s lives by the looked after system requiring the ongoing involvement with the local authority.  I should mention that the paternal grandparents of C have expressed an interest in caring for A and B and a foster care assessment of them is being undertaken, which will take, I am told, 16 weeks.  This opens up the possibility of placement closer to C should the court approve the plan of placement with the paternal aunt and her partner.
99	In terms of C’s placement, the advantages of this placement with PA and Z under a care order is that she would be brought up within a family placement which is open to extensive contact with her siblings, and the wider family.  The assessment of this placement is positive and C would be protected from neglect which has characterised the upbringing of her older siblings and, to a lesser extent, herself.  The disadvantages of this placement are that it will mean C is separated from her mother and her siblings with whom she has always lived and this will undoubtedly cause confusion and upset, at least in the short term.  The placement with the paternal aunty is untried.  I note this is a disadvantage and she, like her siblings, will be a looked after child with the disadvantages which I have already identified when discussing the position of the older siblings.
100	So I now explain my welfare decision with reference to the welfare checklist.  I accept the older children would wish to stay at home if they could.  This must be considered in the context of the fact that this is all they have ever known and they are fearful of change.  This has been exacerbated by the mother’s willingness to discuss the plans of the local authority openly and in a highly emotional way with the children.   The children’s wishes must be given appropriate weight but must be placed in the context of the age and maturity, and also their life experiences whilst living at home.  
101	I have reached the clear conclusion that the current situation cannot continue.  I am clear that the mother has been unable to offer the children consistently good enough care and the children have suffered significant harm whilst at home.  The matters of fundamental importance in the welfare checklist relate to the capability of the mother as a parent and the harm which children have suffered and would continue to suffer if they stay where they are.  Their basic needs for a safe and secure home, free from domestic violence and conflict, have not been met.  The basic needs of the older children for regular school attendance, support with their homework, clean clothes, attendance at the dentist, attendance at the GP when necessary, have not been met on a consistent basis with the mother exhibiting a stubborn approach to advice and unwillingness or inability to learn from her mistakes or improve her approach.  
102	I found the evidence of the social worker, but particularly that of the head teacher, as compelling about the extent to which the children’s needs have been neglected and the mother’s inability or unwillingness to see beyond her own position and do what was right for the children. The involvement of the local authority dates back years and, in more recent times, clear indications have been given to the mother time and time again about what she needed to do and to change for the local authority to be satisfied the children were no longer at risk and so that it, the local authority, could end its involvement.
103	The PLO meeting in December spelled out what needed to change.  Care proceedings were issued and on no less than four occasions, the local authority brought the case back to court to seek removal of the children.  Clear warnings were given, written agreements were amended, but no effective change followed.  I find that the mother has adopted a bunker mentality with regard to the approach of the local authority and other professionals.  On one level, it is perhaps possible to understand the mother’s view due to the regularity of the applications to court.  However, even though the court was unwilling to sanction removal in the interim mindful of the stiff test which needed to be satisfied to justify interim removal, those applications were being made with good reason which was that little appeared to be changing on the ground and professionals had genuine concerns for these children.  The regular insistence that things needed to change has had no effect and, if anything, made the mother more impervious to the idea of cooperation.  I find that the mother has a basic lack of insight into the problems and her view is that she is being persecuted.  Her clear evidence to me was that this was at the heart of the local authority application and there really were no grounds, actually, for the local authority to be involved at all.
104	A fundamental requirement for the court to contemplate leaving the children at home would be a willingness on the mother’s part to work in open partnership with the professionals to ensure that the basic needs of these children are met.  I am sorry to say that I regard the prospects of this happening as being slim to non-existent and the events of yesterday, even making the greatest allowance for the upset the mother felt, I am afraid once again is an illustration of her inability to see things from the children’s perspective.
105	Although I accept her relationship with SW1 has broken down, I am of the clear view that it is the involvement of the local authority which is at the heart of the mother’s objection, not the individual filling the role of key social worker.  I find that it is more likely than not that a change of personnel could not make a difference to the mother’s approach and attitude.  
106	I find the evidence of the school and the social worker is accurate and that the mother is incapable of cooperating consistently and changing her basic parenting style so that the children could safely remain where they are.
107	I accept the potential for harm is not just presented by remaining at home, but the removal of the children from the care of the mother where they have always lived and the fact that C herself will be separated and put in a separate placement from her siblings, all of this I accept has potential to cause emotional harm.  I do not underestimate that.  However, I have reached the clear conclusion that the potential for future harm in the home of the mother in terms of neglect of basic needs presents a much greater long-term threat.  This is a view supported by the children’s guardian who had, throughout the proceedings, despite her serious misgivings, refused to sanction removal.  Her clear and unequivocal view reached in her final report and confirmed in her evidence was that enough was enough and that nothing was likely to change; that the situation at home was now unmanageable and really the children had to leave.
108	I cannot envisage any further support which could be put in place that could justify the court sanctioning the continued placement of these children at home.  I find the school has done all it can as has the local authority.  The reality is that if the mother is not prepared to cooperate consistently, nothing can be done. 
109	In those circumstances, the only realistic options which will meet the welfare needs of each of these children are placement in foster care for B and A, and placement in Liverpool with PA and Z for C.
110	I have considered the amended care plans and the proposed contact plan and I approve the care plan and plan for contact.  I understand the wishes of the parents for as much contact as possible, but I must remind myself that these are now permanent placements for the children.  Balance must be struck between needs of the children to see their parents and family, the need to see each other, and their fundamental needs to invest in what are, hopefully, long-term placements.
111	I note that contact will be reduced to monthly for the mother and the children with additional contact between siblings also monthly.  Again, as a result of the events of yesterday, that, to a degree, is now up in the air and will be reviewed.  I know that FB seeks a higher level of contact to B and I note that he is currently seeing her on a much more regular basis than the reduction in contact that is proposed and that his contact is positive.  However, I must also remember he is not going to be a fulltime carer at this time.  He has work with regard to his history of domestic violence and the use of tramadol that he needs to address and he acknowledges this.  The court must survey the overall plan for contact and, having done so, I cannot say that it is unreasonable.  This is particularly so when I also remind myself the issue of contact was the subject of full review in January 2017.
112	So, in those circumstances, I approve the care plans of the local authority and make care orders with regard to each of these children.