1) The original version of this judgment included the names of the children, their parents and all professionals involved with the family, and specific dates were identified. This published version and the children’s names have been altered to preserve the privacy and anonymity of the family concerned. 2) The court is concerned with the welfare of three [European] children, a boy called Arthur aged 10 years, his sister, Bella aged 7, and their brother Carl aged 6. The children have been represented at this hearing by Ms Tickle, who in turn has taken her instructions from the children’s guardian, Mr David Dunwell. 3) The mother of all three children is [name redacted] who is represented by counsel, Ms Stephanie Hine, and any reference in this judgment to ‘the mother’ refers to [name redacted]. 4) The father of Arthur is [Father 1] who is believed to be living in [a European country]. He has been given notice of these proceedings via the [relevant] Consulate but has chosen to take no part in them, he does not have any relationship with Arthur at present. 5) The father of Bella and Carl is [Father 2] who is currently in prison in [a different European Country] in relation to fraud charges with his earliest date of release being in 2026. He has been given notice of these proceedings and submitted letters to the court stating he would like to care for the children upon his release and in the meantime he would like his parents to have some contact with them. [Father 2] has had no contact with Bella or Carl since 2021. 6) The local authority in this case is Sheffield City Council. It is represented by counsel, Ms Jones, and I may refer to it hereafter as ‘the local authority’. 7) The application before the court is brought by the local authority under section 31 of the Children Act 1989. It was issued in December 2024. At this final hearing it seeks final care orders for all three children with a care plan for them to be placed together in a single long term foster placement. Bella and Carl are currently placed together in an interim foster placement, Arthur is placed separately for reasons which I will come to in due course. The final care plan is fully supported by the children’s guardian but partially opposed by the mother. She accepts she cannot provide the care to Arthur or Carl which they need and agrees final care orders should be made for her two sons, but she seeks the immediate return of Bella to her care. 8) At the IRH which was listed on the 23 May 2025 the mother was opposing the final care plans and sought the immediate return of all three children. At the IRH she had failed to provide the court with any detailed evidence about the changes she asserted she had made, how she proposed to care for the children, what support she considered she would need to do so, and who she proposed to rely upon as part of her support network. This court extended the time for her to file further evidence and listed this final hearing to reduce delay. The mother only partially complied with the extended period to file her evidence and Ms Hine found herself seeking a further extension of time to file evidence on the first day of this final hearing which was not opposed by the local authority or children’s guardian. No adequate explanation for the mother’s failure to comply repeatedly with the directions of the court has been provided. 9) The mother has made concessions in respect of the schedule of facts pleaded by the local authority to satisfy the section 31 statutory criteria and those were approved and adopted by the court at the IRH. They are set out at the end of this judgment. Accordingly, the main focus of this final hearing is to consider the disputed final care plan for Bella, and if all three children do remain in long term foster care the mother would like to spend time with them at a greater frequency than the local authority proposes in its final care plans. The local authority intends for there to be a gradual reduction from weekly contact to once per month face to face direct contact, interposed with video contact to enable the children to have some form of contact with their mother on a fortnightly basis. The mother considers this to be insufficient and she would like, ideally, to continue to see them every week. The children’s guardian supports the local authority’s proposals. 10) I have had the benefit of reading the written reports and statements filed by the parties and those documents which appear in the index of the electronic court bundle for this hearing. I have seen and read some additional certificates, school reports and evidence provided by the mother during the hearing itself, and I have read the expert reports from the court appointed experts in the previous proceedings which have been disclosed into these proceedings. 11) I have heard oral evidence from the allocated social worker, Ms Charity Wesseh, from the mother and from the children’s guardian. The mother has been assisted throughout the proceedings and this hearing by [her European language] interpreter to ensure her participation and full understanding. 12) It should be recorded that even where I do not refer to any particular piece of written statement, evidence or report during the course of my judgment it has nevertheless now been read and taken into consideration, and I have determined only those issues which required resolving to determine the purpose of this hearing justly. 13) It should also be noted that where reported speech is given in italics in this judgment it may be taken directly from the written evidence or from my contemporary notes of the oral evidence, and where it is from the latter it is materially and factually accurate but it is possible that some quotations may not be verbatim due to the speed at which the note was written during the oral evidence. The Law 14) The relevant law which applies is set out below. In describing the background and in the narrative parts of this judgment, I may address matters upon which the parties do not agree. I may give my findings on these disputed matters as they arise and when doing so, I apply the following principles derived from the judgment of Baker J (as he then was) in the case of A Local Authority v (1) A Mother (2) A Father (3) L & M (Children by their Children’s Guardian) [2013] EWHC 1569 (Fam):- • The burden of proving an allegation lies with the party who is making it, in this case that is the local authority; • The standard to which it must prove it is the usual civil standard namely the balance of probabilities. • Findings must be based on evidence and on inferences which can be properly drawn from the evidence but cannot be based on mere suspicion or speculation. • Evidence cannot be evaluated and assessed in separate compartments. AJudge in these cases must have regard to the relevance of each piece of evidence to other evidence and exercise an overview of the totality of the evidence in order to come to a conclusion whether the case put forward by the local authority has been made out to the appropriate standard of proof. • Whilst appropriate attention must be paid to the opinion of medical experts, those opinions need to be considered in the context of all the other evidence. It is important to remember that the roles of the court and the expert are distinct and it is the court that is in the position to weigh up the expert evidence against its findings on the other evidence. It is the judge who makes the final decision. • In assessing the expert evidence……. the court must be careful to ensure that each expert keeps within the bounds of their own expertise and defers, where appropriate, to the expertise of others. • The evidence of the parents and any other carers is of the utmost importance. It is essential that the court forms a clear assessment of their credibility and reliability. • It is common for witnesses in these cases to tell lies in the course of the investigation and the hearing. The court must be careful to bear in mind that a witness may lie for many reasons, such as shame, misplaced loyalty, panic, fear and distress, and the fact that a witness has lied about some matters does not mean that he or she has lied about everything (see R v Lucas [1981] QB 720) 15) In respect of the welfare considerations, I have directed myself in accordance with section 1 of the Children Act 1989 namely, that the children’s welfare is my paramount consideration, and had regard to the welfare checklist in section 1(3) of the Act. I have reminded myself of the principle contained in section 1(2) in respect of delay, and of the need for it to be better for the children to make an order than no order as set out in section 1(5). I have also had regard to the important principle that any State interference with family life must be proportionate to the risks which exist, and the necessity for compliance with the European Convention of Human Rights. 16) I have reminded myself of section 34(11) of the Children Act 1989 and the obligation on the court to consider the arrangements which the local authority proposes to make for affording the mother contact with the children if final care orders are made. The mother invites the court to make an order for defined contact at a frequency of not less than fortnightly face to face. The Background 17) The factual background is set out in great detail within the papers and within the written case opening prepared by the local authority. It is not necessary or proportionate to repeat everything in the family history within this judgment which is confined to those aspects which I consider to be relevant to understand the context of the court’s decision. The facts which are set out below are agreed or unopposed unless stated otherwise. 18) The family has been known to social care since entering the UK in 2017 and since that date have been an open case with social care on six occasions and received support in various ways including by way of ‘Child in Need’ (CiN) plans. In 2021 professional concerns escalated and the children became the subject of previous public law proceedings during which they were removed from the care of their mother in February 2021 and placed in the interim care of the local authority. Those proceedings concluded on the 21st July 2022 with all three children being returned to the care of their mother subject to a supervision order for six months. 19) The facts which led to the previous proceedings being issued by the local authority and which were agreed by the mother to satisfy the section 31 statutory criteria included physical and emotional harm and neglect arising from the following: • The mother’s mental health problems and her diagnoses of depression and anxiety which caused her to struggle to meet the children’s needs. The mother informed professionals she was unable to cope with caring for the children and she was going to walk out and leave them. In February 2021 she voluntarily placed them in the care of the local authority; • At the time the children were accommodated under section 20 of the Children Act 1989, the home conditions where they lived with their mother were unacceptable making it an extremely unsafe environment in which to live. The property had to be cleaned by professional cleaners and redecorated; • The mother had been a victim of domestic violence perpetrated by [Father 2], and she accepted there had been one occasion in August 2020 when he had hit Bella. She agreed the children are likely to have been afraid and upset by witnessing the violence perpetrated upon herself; • [Father 2] had been remanded in custody in the UK arising from an allegation of rape made by the mother. A trial was due to take place in May 2021 but it collapsed when the mother failed to pursue the allegation against him due to her poor mental health at the time. [Father 2] was subsequently extradited from the UK to [a European country] in April 2022 and incarcerated in [that country] on separate criminal charges where he remains. 20) Throughout the duration of the supervision order the mother and the children continued to be supported by social care, firstly under CiN plans until November 2023 when the support was stepped down to the Family Intervention Service (FIS) but stepped back up to social care in December 2023 when concerns increased. The case was stepped down to the FIS again in May 2024 but stepped back up to social care in June 2024 with a repeating pattern of whenever social care tried to reduce its involvement, the concerns escalated. 21) On the [date redacted] June 2024 the mother refused to collect the children from school asserting she was unwell which necessitated the children being cared for by a neighbour at short notice. The mother continued to make reports of ongoing health issues which prevented her from caring for the children. Social care endeavoured to establish the precise nature of the various health issues being alleged but there was no evidence provided to explain them. The mother continued to make repeated requests for alternative care/support for the children, these requests included the children to be placed in foster care for up to 3 months or until she was feeling better. The children were aware these requests were being made by her which was detrimental and harmful to their emotional welfare. 22) On the [date redacted] and [date redacted] November 2024 the mother made it clear she cannot be expected to care for the children fulltime and she needs to recuperate, although precisely from what is not clear. She also approached the local authority for support with sorting out her debts and passports for the children evidencing an inability to manage her own problems quite apart from caring for the children. 23) On the [date redacted] November 2024 the mother presented at the children’s school, she stated she was unwell and asked for social care to collect the children. The mother had no suitable adult within her support network who could care for them and for this reason they were placed in foster care where they remain and these proceedings were issued. 24) The facts which the mother accepts existed to satisfy the section 31 statutory criteria when the proceedings were issued reflect the above concerns and also include the following: • The mother sending the children to school wearing inappropriate clothing; • A lack of food in the home with the children being dependent upon meals being provided to them at school; • The mother delegating her care of the youngest two children to Arthur who, on occasions, had the responsibility for disciplining his younger siblings; • Instability in the children’s living arrangements which affected the children’s security and emotional wellbeing. Arthur has lived in nine different homes since he came to the UK and attended four different primary schools. Bella is developmentally behind her peers at school and struggles to follow rules and boundaries; Carl has episodes of dysregulated behaviour and has been heard to call his mother ‘a bitch’, a ‘stupid idiot’ and has written ‘fuck you’ on the living room walls and sofa. • The mother accepts she has poor physical and mental health which impacts adversely upon her ability to provide consistently stable and good enough parenting to her children. She has diagnoses of anxiety and depression. The Evidence of the Local Authority in Respect of the Mother’s Ability to Meet the Needs of the Children 25) During proceedings the court directed a parenting assessment of the mother which was conducted by Mr Cameron Baker. The outcome of the assessment does not support any of the children being returned to her care and the contents of the report have not been challenged by the mother. I accept its contents for this reason. 26) Mr Baker highlights the positive aspects of the mother’s parenting capacity namely, her love for her children, her ability to meet their needs within the short intervals of contact sessions, her housing conditions are not currently a concern, and the absence of concerns about drugs or alcohol. However, he continues to have serious concerns about the mother’s understanding of: • Child development; • Children’s feelings; • Child behaviours; • Managing and dealing with stress; • Parental health; • Decision making; • The mother’s history and trauma; • The mother’s mental health; • And the lack of a family and friend support network. 27) The local authority asserts the mother’s attendance at weekly contact with the children during these proceedings has not been good enough. It is agreed, of the 25 sessions made available to her up until the end of May 2025, the mother cancelled five and attended late on a further five occasions sometimes by up to 45 minutes. Therefore, she fails to attend promptly or at all 40% of the time. 28) There has been no dispute that when Mr Baker spoke to the mother in February 2025 about the importance of attending contact and being there for the children, she responded with: “I have to focus on me, I have the doctor and therapist, not everything is about the children and they cannot always come first”. Throughout the assessment the mother spoke often about “therapists and councillors needing to work with the children and why they are sad and upset. [The mother] showed little insight into her own ability to care for the children and connect with them emotionally”…. “[The mother] discussed it was hard to manage her children on a daily basis and she did not see things wrong with having Arthur care for the younger children or to send him to the shop without her, when she was not feeling well.” 29) It is agreed the mother has endured trauma, bereavement and abuse in her life. Mr Baker’s opinion is that she is not a resilient woman by nature of her poor mental/physical health and her lack of consistent support network. The mother may present well but this belies a fundamental lack of understanding of her children’s competing needs for safety and security. The mother is vulnerable in relationships and as a consequence, so are the children, in his opinion she does not fully understand or appreciate the impact this has on the children. 30) Mr Baker concludes the mother has an unrealistic understanding of support services and also of her friends and network, she appears to access these “in an unbalanced approach and does not understand that she is the primary carer for her children”. In his opinion, if the children were to be placed in the mother’s care again the same concerns and difficulties would arise leading to further significant harm such as: • Emotional harm through hearing or seeing their mum state she wants them to be in foster care or cared for by someone else; • Physical harm through poor supervision within the home and community and being unable to manage three children; • Neglect by not being able to meet the day to day needs of the children, including their own health and education. 31) Both the allocated social worker and the children’s guardian adopt the concerns expressed by Mr Baker that the mother is simply not ready to care for her children without significant and constant support, and that she has unrealistic expectations of the extent of the support professionals can offer if she seeks to be the primary carer for any of her three children. 32) Ms Wesseh carried out a Sibling Assessment Report in relation to the three children in order to make a recommendation about the children’s relationships and future placement. It is dated 19 May 2025. Information was gathered from the children’s current foster carers, their school teachers, observations of them together in contact and from home visits in their respective placements. At the time the assessment was prepared the mother’s preference was for her children to be living together as one family. 33) When the children were placed in emergency foster care in November 2024, Arthur and Bella were placed together with Carl placed separately. Bella settled very quickly but “looked to Arthur for assistance and answers to questions in most situations, despite being offered assistance by adults. This constant need for assistance from Arthur was very overwhelming and irritating for Arthur and he would often snap at Bella and berate her”. Bella’s behaviour was also challenging and she could be emotionally dysregulated and destructive, especially after contact. Arthur would be very quiet and withdrawn and also showed dysregulated behaviour at contact in the first 2-3 months, he would shout and cry and become very frustrated. The foster carer found it a challenge to meet their needs alongside another, third foster child in the home and the decision was made to move Bella to be with Carl instead as there was no placement available which could accommodate all three children together. Since then, Arthur has become more engaged, talkative, relaxed, is sleeping better and enjoys the peace and quiet. Arthur has expressed his view that he wishes to be placed alone without his siblings whereas both Bella and Carl wish for all of them to be together. 34) After the first couple of nights, Carl and Bella adjusted to living together again and shared a bedroom, their foster carer reports they have a ‘lovely relationship’ and both children have a positive relationship with the foster carer’s own daughter. Bella is reported to ‘love playing with Carl and our birth daughter and going on days out with us”. 35) All three children can speak [their European language] and English although Bella was diagnosed in April 2025 with a developmental language disorder which causes Bella to have difficulties in understanding and using spoken language in both English and [her European language]. Bella is behind her peers in her learning and she struggles with making friends, she is easily led and requires a lot of support. She needs to be monitored when she is eating otherwise she can continue to eat until she is sick due to overeating and she doesn’t express her emotions freely. 36) The Sibling assessment concludes Arthur became parentified whilst in the care of his mother by assuming responsibilities beyond his developmental age. This dynamic led to complex feelings, particularly resentment towards Bella and Carl, and when he sees them he defaults back to the parenting role whereas the younger two children are consistently happy to see Arthur. Ms Wesseh considers the time they have spent apart in foster care has allowed Bella and Carl an opportunity to trust their care givers will meet their needs, and with therapeutic and practical support in place, including consistent care giving, the children could and should be placed together. 37) Ms Wesseh highlights the positives in the children’s relationships, that the ‘foundational bond’ between the children remains intact, and a placement together would mitigate any feelings of loss and trauma from their separation from their birth family. It will provide the children with a shared, mutual support system and preserve their sense of identity as part of a sibling group. 38) Ms Wesseh does not support Bella being separated from her brothers or returned on her own to the care of the mother. Ms Wesseh’s opinion is that if this were to happen Bella is likely to find herself being returned to the foster care system in the future. Ms Wesseh concedes that as a general principle, caring for one child is likely to be easier than caring for three but the support the mother would require to do so is not likely to exist on a consistent basis and what has happened in the past is more likely to be repeated. 39) Ms Wesseh expressed her concern about the nature and effectiveness of the therapy the mother has undertaken because there is no evidence before the court about the therapist’s qualifications or its aims, its outcome or the mother’s engagement with it. The mother concedes she has not engaged with any Independent Domestic Abuse Services or attended any of their courses, such as the ‘Power to Change’ course, which also caused Ms Wesseh concern for the lack of change in the mother’s understanding of the risks arising from any relationships or friendships which may feature domestic abuse. Ms Wesseh highlighted the mother’s propensity to accept support with the children and keeping her home habitable from anyone, including people who she had only just met and whose names she did not fully know, without making any checks on their background. 40) In respect of the children’s wishes and feelings and the proposed contact arrangements, Ms Wesseh agreed that in April 2025, all three children were expressing a wish to return to the care of their mother and if that were not possible, Arthur wished to stay where he was with his existing foster carer. The local authority has not yet identified a foster placement which is a suitable cultural match for all three children together and the search would need to continue if the final care plans are approved. 41) Ms Wesseh explained the reason for the proposed reduction in contact from its existing frequency was to send the message to the children that they are not returning home to the care of their mother and to allow them to settle in their new foster placement because they still ask, “when are we going home?” Ms Wesseh stated the frequency of contact would be reduced gradually and kept under review within the ‘Looked After Child’ (LAC) review processes by the Independent Reviewing Officer (IRO) to ensure it met the ongoing needs of each child. The Mother’s Case 42) The mother admits she has struggled with her mental and physical health which has affected her ability to meet her children's needs, and she acknowledges this led to the children being placed in foster care, which she has found painful and distressing. The mother has expressed her deep love for her children and a strong desire for all three of them to return to her care. Her proposal is for Bella to be returned to her care first due to the mother’s current limitations and Bella’s less challenging behaviour. 43) The mother states she has completed approximately 40 appointments with a [European] therapist called [name redacted] over the course of the past 4 years, and she has attended group therapy in [her European country of birth] for a week in February 2025. The mother stated the group therapy worked through “my childhood and relationships and looking after my children as well as the problems from my past… I met new people and we had time to do some sightseeing. We had time to write a summary and to discuss issues from our lives.” With [the therapist] she states she “discussed my childhood, my relationship with my parents, my illness and health, and my life and duties caring for the children”. 44) The mother has provided a letter from her GP dated 26 February 2025 which confirms she has some identified health needs, namely a diagnosis of depression since July 2018 and anxiety since 2019, for which she is currently prescribed Fluoxetine having been on other antidepressants previously. The mother’s most recent contact with the surgery had been on the 25 February with a concern about raised blood pressure but her blood pressure in the clinic was normal. She was advised to monitor her blood pressure for a week and then to return for a review and routine monitoring. The mother has a diagnosis of asthma and is prescribed an inhaler, she is paying privately for vitamin injections and has consulted other medical professionals including what her GP described as “a handful of contacts with emergency services during this time as well with relatively minor ailments, with a one day admission in July with abdominal pain. In 2023 there seems to have been more interaction with the emergency services for a number of reasons relating to [the mother’s] mental health and physical health including a bus accident, respiratory tract infections and tired all the time”. 45) The mother states she completed an online Solihull parenting course and downloaded additional materials to improve her parenting skills. The mother fully intends to continue improving her situation and has enrolled in childminding courses starting in September 2025. [The mother] has renovated Bella’s bedroom in anticipation of her return, and states she will need ongoing support from professionals. She has requested assistance with reading school documents, financial support, and access to clubs and camps for Bella over the Summer. It is submitted the mother has done her best with little to no support from either of the fathers of the children which has been a real challenge when English is not her first language. 46) The mother has provided some information about the strength of her support system suggesting it is robust enough to help her to care for one child but not all three. She criticises the local authority for not promoting contact with each child individually to give her a better opportunity to demonstrate how she could, and would, be able to meet the needs of one child on their own. If Bella does remain in foster care, the mother opposes any reduction in the time she spends with the children from the existing weekly frequency and submits it would be harmful to the children and their cultural identity to do so. The Recommendations of the Children’s Guardian 47) Mr Dunwell gives credit to the mother for not opposing the care plans for Arthur or Carl and for recognising her parenting limitations in that regard. However, he is firmly of the opinion the mother would be unable to meet the needs of one child on their own, and Bella is likely to be placed at ongoing risk of harm if she were to be returned to her mother’s care. 48) Mr Dunwell’s opinion is that the risks which prevent the mother caring for the boys are the same ones which prevent her caring for Bella. The mother is very much a work in progress and still has a long way to go to address fully the longstanding concerns her parenting presents to the children. Mr Dunwell has considered whether any package of support could be formulated to ameliorate the concerns in this case and his opinion is that there is not. He agrees the local authority has tried intensive family support together with referrals to other agencies in addition to the usual support from universal services, but this was still not enough to prevent the children from being returned to the foster care system. Mr Dunwell notes the mother’s proposed support network is little different to that which existed in November 2024 when the children were received into care and if this was not sufficient to prevent that outcome, then he has no confidence it would be sufficient on any future occasion. 49) When Mr Dunwell spoke to the mother in July 2025 during the week prior to this final hearing taking place, she told him she had no support and one of the persons she had identified within her statement to the court, [friend 1, name redacted], was no longer suitable because of issues with domestic abuse in his past which she had recently become aware of, although she indicated she was still open to the idea of him spending time with the children during the weekend and supporting her with daily tasks. The mother informed Mr Dunwell that a friend, [friend 2, name redacted] would look after Bella if necessary, but she had declined to provide [friend 2’s] details to social care and [friend 2] was also a person whose support was not sufficient in November 2024. 50) Mr Dunwell expressed his concern about the mother’s primary focus being upon herself and her inability to prioritise the needs of the children above her own, he relies upon the views the mother expressed to Mr Baker, namely that ‘not everything revolves around the children’, set out above, as well as the fact she cancelled one contact visit choosing to attend a wedding instead. The mother expressed little recognition the children would be upset by missing contact with her. 51) The mother’s inability to attend contact on time is another concern for Mr Dunwell and he is worried the mother will continue to be unable to collect Bella from school on time which will elevate Bella’s anxiety as it would reflect the day she was placed into foster care, most likely triggering anxious memories. Mr Dunwell expressed his concern for Arthur and Carl, who attend the same school as Bella, witnessing Bella being collected from school by their mother when they were not going home and the emotional upset this is likely to cause all three children. When asked about this concern in cross examination, the mother said she would change Bella’s school. 52) Mr Dunwell gives credit to the mother for engaging in therapy but expressed his concern there is no information filed by her to indicate the nature and degree of therapy she has undertaken. Therefore, Mr Dunwell cannot be confident she has addressed the difficulties identified by the psychologist in the previous proceedings to reduce any risk of repetition. 53) Mr Dunwell’s opinion is that all three children should be given the opportunity to live and be brought up together. They require a level of security and stability which the mother has not been able to provide them with and he does not consider she will be able to provide it for the foreseeable future. Analysis and Conclusions 54) It is agreed that at the time the local authority intervened to protect the children they had suffered and were likely to suffer significant harm attributable to the care their mother had provided to them, and was likely to provide to them in the future arising from her problems with her mental and physical health, her abandonment of the children at school, her neglect of their physical and emotional welfare, the instability in their care and living arrangements, and the risk of witnessing violence from [Father 2]. 55) In respect of the welfare evaluation, I am persuaded the local authority and children’s guardian are correct and this is a mother who is yet to make the changes she needs to make to care for any of her three children arising from the above agreed facts, and whilst she loves them very much, she struggles to parent them whilst struggling with her own mental and physical health issues. I formed the view the mother has to manage a high level of anxiety, much of it projected towards her health, which causes her to become preoccupied with her own needs to the exclusion of the children’s. It has led to her becoming neglectful of their welfare, prioritising her own needs above theirs, and when she can no longer cope she has no support network to assist her, being reliant on the children being placed repeatedly and unpredictably in the care of the local authority which in turn is emotionally harmful to their welfare. 56) The mother was, and still is, unable or unwilling to recognise she is the primary cause of many of the children’s behavioural difficulties, and notwithstanding her acceptance of the facts pleaded to satisfy the statutory threshold she continues to lack insight into the risks those facts and her parenting have presented to the children. In her oral evidence she stated: “I strongly oppose (the reduction in contact). This is not fair. I am not an alcoholic, I don’t use drugs, I’m not violent, I didn’t abuse my children, I don’t do such things, what did I do wrong? I don’t agree”. She also blamed the previous foster carer for Carl’s use of abusive words and dysregulated behaviour rather than accepting any responsibility for it. The additional reasons why I reach these conclusions are as follows: 57) Firstly, I find the mother to be an inaccurate historian. In her oral evidence she told the court her health was much improved and she had not been to hospital for 7 months, but then conceded in cross examination she cancelled contact with the children on the 7 March 2025 because she had been in hospital overnight. In July, the mother told Mr Dunwell she hadn’t had any therapy since undertaking the group therapy in [Europe] in February and yet in her oral evidence stated she had completed two sessions with the NHS in June. When asked why she failed to mention this to the Guardian when she saw him in the week prior to this final hearing, the mother’s explanation is “No one asked me about this. I didn’t think it was so relevant”, which is surprising when she went on to accept Mr Dunwell asked her a direct question about the therapy she had completed. It causes me to doubt the reliability of the mother’s evidence and to prefer the evidence of Mr Dunwell and Ms Wesseh. 58) Secondly, I am persuaded the weight of the evidence in this case all points in one direction. The unchallenged facts demonstrate longstanding problems with the mother’s care of the children on a cyclical basis, and the facts which led to the issuing of these proceedings mirror the facts which led to proceedings being issued in 2021 with no sustained improvement. The unchallenged evidence in the statement from [name redacted], the headteacher at the children’s school who sees the children daily, echoes that from Social Care set out above. He states that since September 2023 school staff have held significant concerns about the mother’s ability to care for the children, “She has often been late collecting them from school and seems to prioritise other aspects of her life (arranging meetings or appointments close to pick up time, taking weekends away, and engaging in other relationships) ahead of the needs of the children.” …. “Mum struggles to manage the behaviour of the children at home and whilst out in the community. The children have received injuries from broken glass when playing outside the house. The children are often hungry and present as dirty and unkempt and have been sent to school in dirty and/or ill-fitting clothes. The children have told us they are worried whether Mum will be there at the end of the school day to take them home – or will it be a member of staff from Social Care”. [The headteacher] notes there have been occasions when the mother has collected the children after 4.30pm when the school day ends at 3.15pm, and she often states she is stressed and unable to cope with caring for the children. 59) [The headteacher] notes the children’s attendance at school is over 97% but staff have concerns for the children’s presentation including from Arthur’s inappropriate caring responsibilities, Bella’s reluctance to talk and hitting out, lacking empathy and requiring emotional support from staff whilst working well below age related expectations, and Carl being distressed and, at times, aggressive. He has been difficult to manage in the classroom and had several episodes of extreme dysregulation where he has needed to be held by an adult to keep him safe. 60) This evidence demonstrates the adverse impact the mother’s parenting is having upon the children, and no court which has the welfare of the children as its paramount consideration is likely to find it acceptable to place the children, yet again, into the same care environment. 61) Thirdly, I am persuaded the mother has not yet made the changes she needs to make to care for Bella on her own because there is a paucity of evidence to rely upon other than her assertion this is the case. 62) In the previous proceedings the court appointed a psychologist, Dr Alex Marshall who assessed the mother and his unchallenged opinion is that: “In my view [the mother] is likely to present as particularly rigid and respond inconsistently as she experiences difficulties regarding her emotional availability, particularly during times of distress and indeed within relationships in response to actual or perceived insecurity within a given relationship. At such times [the mother] is likely to prioritise her own emotional needs and experience difficulties in responding adaptively and is likely to seek external means of regulating herself including via unhealthy relationships. In my view, [the mother] is likely to experience difficulties in consistently recognising and thus being able to respond to the emotional needs of a child in her care and to prioritise their needs when she is experiencing periods of distress during which times there is also a risk that [the mother] experiences difficulties with structure and routine and the children’s physical needs are at risk of being neglected”. I accept the accuracy of Dr Marshall’s opinion because this is exactly what happened after the children were returned to the mother’s care in 2022. 63) Due to the mother’s difficulties with functioning reflectively, Dr Marshall recommended “the optimal therapeutic approach would be a longer term approach such as mentalisation based therapy (MBT) which is delivered over the course of approximately six months to focus on [the mother’s] difficulties with reflective functioning and communicating her own emotions and thus being able to respond in a more adaptive manner……[the mother] would also need to demonstrate a sustained period of change and there is a risk of treatment failure given that [the mother] has experienced significant deterioration regarding her mental health during which times she has not been able to cope and has engaged in maladaptive stress responses” . 64) The mother has been legally represented throughout these proceedings and has been provided with repeated opportunities to file evidence about the therapy she asserts she has completed, but it is correct, there is no evidence before the court to persuade me any therapy she has completed is consistent with that which Dr Marshall recommended or is of the nature and degree she requires. It is likely the therapy she has engaged with, together with not having the responsibility of caring for the children, has improved her sense of wellbeing and I give her credit for engaging with it, but I am persuaded it is probably not what has been recommended by Dr Marshall because her parenting of the children when they were in her care changed little during the course of it, and her parenting has not been good enough during these proceedings either, evidenced by her failure to attend contact consistently and on time choosing instead to prioritise her other commitments and social engagements. This behaviour is a repeating pattern as described by school staff and [the headteacher], by Mr Baker, by Ms Wesseh and by the children’s guardian. It persuades me that until the mother is able to evidence the successful completion of the therapy recommended by Dr Marshall, the likelihood of Bella or indeed any of her children being parented in the same harmful way is a high one and must be avoided. 65) I have taken into account the mother agrees she told the social worker on the 25 March 2025 that she would “like the children to remain in foster care as she will not be able to meet their care needs consistently without childcare support, financial stability and her ongoing health needs which are unpredictable. I signposted [the mother] to Citizen’s Advice so she can receive support with her debts. [The mother] stated that she is unable to look after her children due to her physical health not her mental health hence she had not asked the GP for a referral to Talking Therapies or similar service”. There is no updating evidence from the mother’s G.P. since February 2025, or any other medical practitioner, to explain what improvements the mother has achieved in either her physical or mental health, or if improvements have been achieved, why there is no answer to the issue of why she continues to seek so much support to care for the children from the local authority. 66) Fourthly, I have considered the support which the mother requests and which she considers would be sufficient to address any deficits in her parenting, but I am persuaded there is no support package which could be devised which would ameliorate the risks to keep Bella safe in her care. The facts establish a worrying pattern of neglectful care when the children were in the mother’s care and the support she needs is not confined to collecting Bella from school occasionally or caring for her intermittently at weekends or during periods she doesn’t feel well. Bella needs a parent who will show up for her each and every day and provide the consistent nurturing, warm, emotional care she requires. She needs a primary carer who will dress her properly in clean clothes, feed her adequate nutrition consistently, supervise her playing and actively support her education. The mother’s answer to the problem of Arthur and Carl being distressed by witnessing Bella being collected from school by their mother every day is to change Bella’s school. This response demonstrates no consideration of the impact this would have upon Bella when her school has been the only consistent feature of her life since the children started there in 2021 or the time Bella would need to invest in creating a new friendship group which is likely to distract her from the activity of learning when she is already behind her peers academically, or her separation from Arthur and Carl who she sees every day at school. It persuades me the mother’s difficulties with functioning reflectively are ongoing and need addressing. 67) I have listened to the wishes and feelings expressed by the children about where they wish to live and attached appropriate weight to those views in light of their respective ages and understanding. I cannot grant their wish for them all to return home to their mother, understandable though those wishes and feelings are, and in respect of Arthur and Carl the mother agrees with the professionals about this. I cannot grant Bella’s wish to live with her mother when I am persuaded the mother cannot meet her needs and is likely to cause her further harm. 68) I have borne in mind that whatever the outcome of these proceedings there was always going to be a change in the children’s circumstances. The children cannot remain in their two, existing placements as they are not approved as long term foster placements and the children will need to move. This move is, of itself, going to create further uncertainty and instability in the children’s lives and will have an emotional impact upon each of them. Whilst they have settled well into their existing placements their resilience must not be taken for granted and each move is likely to have a further detrimental impact upon their welfare. They need the next move to be to a home where they can make an emotional investment and settle for the long term. Even allowing for the risk of placement breakdown in the care of the local authority, I am persuaded the stable and consistent care which they need is more likely to be found in foster care than with the mother until she completes the changes she needs to make. 69) I am aware that a placement for all three children together is not in accordance with Arthur’s wishes and feelings but I have taken into account the evidence of Ms Wesseh and Mr Dunwell about the changes Bella and Carl have made in their expectations of the care being provided to them by the adults which surround them, and I am persuaded that with therapeutic and practical support the children could and should be given the opportunity to grow up together. It would promote their cultural and individual identity and provide a sense of belonging to their sibling group. 70) Accordingly, for each of these reasons I grant the local authority’s application and approve the final care plans for the children to be placed together in long term foster care. 71) It is with this in mind that I turn to consider the starting point for the frequency of the proposed contact between the mother and the children whilst they live in foster care. Until now, it has been maintained at a level which may provide the springboard for rehabilitation to the care of the mother and this is no longer going to be the case for the foreseeable future. It needs to be set at a level which reflects the reality of the children’s lives and enables them to participate in other activities which reflect their respective ages and stage of development, it needs to be set at a frequency which promotes their mixed [European] and English cultural heritage, and in particular at a frequency which allows them to make the emotional investment in any long term foster carers free of any uncertainty about if or when they may be going home to live with their mother. 72) The local authority proposes a frequency of twice per month, one such contact to be face to face and the other to be remotely via video call. The mother would like to keep the existing level of weekly, the children’s guardian supports and recommends a more fluid arrangement which has a regular structure but which also responds flexibly to the needs of the children and may include activity based contact. Mr Dunwell accepted he had not spoken to the children about his recommendation for there to be a reduction in contact which was an oversight on his part, and accordingly, he agreed there was no information about their likely responses to seeing their mother less frequently. I consider from my evaluation of the evidence as a whole that if the children had been asked, they are unlikely to wish for contact to be reduced when their primary wish is to return home to live with their mother. 73) I have taken into account the mother’s evidence that the children are likely to be ‘very upset and surprised’ by any reduction in contact but I balance that against the mother’s comments to Mr Baker that she could not commit to attending contact once per week because she has to see her doctor/therapist, that ‘not everything revolves around the children’ and this being borne out by the mother’s failure to attend contact promptly or at all for 40% of the time which is not in the children’s best interests either. Until the mother successfully completes the MBT recommended by Dr Marshall, I am persuaded her inability to prioritise the children’s welfare and to attend contact consistently is likely to continue. 74) Having taken into account the findings I have made and the wishes and feelings of the children who do wish to see their mother, I agree that the existing frequency of contact needs to reduce from weekly for the reasons given by the social worker and children’s guardian, and there should be a gradual reduction in the level of face to face contact towards a frequency of once per month. The IRO should monitor and review the children’s responses to the gradual reduction within the LAC Review process. If a pause in the rate of reduction is required to assess how the children adjust or a further reduction beyond monthly is required, or the children need to spend time with their mother one to one, this is the purpose of the LAC Review process and it is not possible for this court to be any more prescriptive about the long term frequency of contact. It may also depend on the children’s and mother’s reactions to the acceptance and formalisation of the care arrangements at the conclusion of these proceedings. I will approve the proposals for contact as set out in Ms Wesseh’s and Mr Dunwell’s evidence accordingly. I do not make any order for Bella or Carl to spend time with [Father 2’s] parents, this is something which will need to be evaluated within the LAC review process should they choose to pursue the same. 75) I direct the advocates to draft the order arising from this judgment. The Schedule of Findings in respect of the section 31 threshold criteria are set out below and will be incorporated into the order which I am to approve in due course. In the event any party requires any further clarification or reasons, I am willing to give those once it has been brought to my attention. I remind the parties any application for leave to appeal must be made within 21 days of the date this judgment is formally handed down in court at 10am on the 6 August 2025 and the order which is going to be drawn by the court on the 6 August will have that reminder recorded on the face of it. H.H. Judge Marson Approved on the 6 August 2025 SCHEDULE OF FACTS FOUND BY THE COURT TO SATISFY THE SECTION 31 STATUTORY CRITERIA At the time protective measures were taken in [date redacted] December 2024, the children Arthur, Bella and Carl were suffering and likely to suffer significant harm and the likelihood of harm was attributable to the care given to them or likely to be given to them by their mother, [name redacted] not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give to them. The parties agree and the court finds the following facts to satisfy the criteria laid down in section 31(2) of the Children Act 1989: 1. The mother has poor physical health and issues with her mental health which impact adversely upon her ability to provide consistently stable and good enough parenting to her children. This places the children at risk of physical and emotional harm and neglect. The mother has been diagnosed with depression and anxiety. There has been local authority support and involvement with the children since the expiration of the supervision order in previous proceedings under case number SE21C00746, as the mother has not been able to manage care of the children without significant support. 2. There is a history of domestic abuse and violence within the relationship between the mother and [Father 2], the father of Bella and Carl. Witnessing any domestic abuse has caused the children emotional harm, fear and distress.  3. In [date redacted] June 2024, the mother refused to collect the children from school, complaining that she was too ill. Arrangements had to be made for the children to be cared for at a neighbour's home. This will have caused the children to be anxious and distressed.  4. The mother has requested on occasion for the children to be placed in foster care due to feeling too unwell to be able to care for them safely. However, when assessed by medical professionals, health issues cannot be identified. The mother's issues and repeated requests for the children to be placed in foster care place them at risk of anxiety and emotional harm. The mother has also asked for a support worker to care for the children a couple of hours each day after school and for transport for the children to be taken to and from school. There is the likelihood the mother is not able to meet the children's needs on a consistent basis and she is too preoccupied with her own issues. This places the children at risk of neglect and emotional and physical harm.  5. The children are made aware by the mother that she wishes for them to be placed in foster care, and this places them at risk of significant emotional harm. 6. On [date redacted] November 2024 and on [date redacted] November 2024 the mother made it clear that she cannot be expected to care for her children 24/7 and that she needs to recuperate. She is not able to meet the needs of her children consistently and this places them at risk of neglect and physical and emotional harm. She has also approached the local authority for support with sorting out her debts and passports for the children, an indication that the mother is not able to manage issues for herself let alone for the children.  7. On [date redacted] November 2024 the mother presented the children at school and asked for social care to care for her children. It was clear that she considered herself to be unwell and unable to care for her children. The children were placed in emergency placements when it became clear that the mother was unable to have them home from school. This will have caused the children anxiety and distress. On [date redacted] November 2024 the mother agreed to S20 accommodation, due to the children being at risk of neglect in her care.  9. The children have been observed to be inappropriately dressed on occasions with their clothing back to front or the wrong size and with Arthur wearing shorts in winter and Bella wearing winter boots in the summer. There has been a lack of food in the home and during term time the children have been dependent upon two meals a day at school. 10. The mother has delegated her care of Carl and Bella at times to Arthur, including on occasions when Arthur has disciplined his younger siblings. This creates a confusing and upsetting environment for the children, leading to emotional and physical harm.  11. All three children have experienced instability in their living arrangements. The mother's inability to provided good enough parenting has impacted upon the children's security and emotional wellbeing. Arthur has lived in nine different homes since coming to the UK and has attended four different primary schools. Bella is behind at school and struggles to follow rules. Carl has episodes of dysregulated behaviour and has been heard to call his mother a "bitch" and a ‘stupid idiot’ and has written "Fuck you" on the living room walls and sofa. Approved: H.H. Judge Marson Dated: 6 August 2025