C (Welfare: Care Order), Re

Summary

1. This summary is addressed to the Mother of a child I will call Cora to keep her identity confidential. It is a short explanation of my decision why Cora cannot return to her care now, why I made a Care Order, and why I found that she used cocaine at the end of 2025. It is not a criticism of her as a person or as a mother. It is about Cora’s safety.

2. I know you love Cora and that you want her to come home. I also know this decision is very painful for you. My job is to decide what is safe and best for Cora, both now and as she grows older. I must make a decision based on evidence, even when it is hard.

3. You have changed your position. You opposed a Care Order but now do not oppose it. This is brave, realistic and focused on what is best for Cora, it is a life changing decision for you and Cora. It is what is best for Cora. You have done the right thing. I sincerely hope it brings you peace and allows you to focus on what needs to change in your life.

4. I agree that it is not safe for Cora to return to your care at the moment because: Keeping children safe from risk

5. In the past, Cora and her sisters were exposed to unsafe situations, including older teenagers and adults being around the home. Safety plans were agreed, but they were not always followed. Difficulty setting and keeping boundaries

6. You love your children, but the evidence shows that you find it very hard to say “no” and to keep firm rules, especially when children push back. This matters more as Cora gets older and more vulnerable. School and health needs

7. When Cora lived with you, her school attendance was poor and important appointments were missed. This affected her development and wellbeing. Domestic abuse

8. There has been domestic abuse in your relationship. Even when you know it is harmful, it has been very hard for you to keep yourself and the children fully away from that risk. Drug misuse

9. I understand that you disagreed with the drug test results from December 2025. However, I have to decide what was more likely than not, based on evidence. I found that a hair strand test in December 2025 showed cocaine in your system. The test showed use between about August and November 2025. You did not ask for re-testing or provide another explanation. What has happened since Cora has been in care

10. Since living in her placement, Cora has been more settled. She is attending school, following routines, enjoying activities, and benefiting from clear boundaries and safe care. Why I have made a Care Order

11. I made a Care Order because: a) Cora needs ongoing protection and stability. b) The Local Authority needs legal responsibility to make sure she stays safe. c) A Care Order allows Cora to stay in a safe placement, have clear routines and boundaries, continue contact with you in a supported way and stay with her sisters for now.

12. It does not mean you do not love Cora. It does not mean Cora can never return to your care. It does not mean you have failed forever. Cora cannot return to you now, but this may change in the future if you engage fully with support for: a) Mental health. b) Healthy relationships. c) Parenting boundaries. d) Substance misuse.

13. Your acceptance that Cora cannot return home at the moment is an important and positive step. I encourage you to take the help offered to you. Doing so gives Cora the best chance of being safely reunited with you in the future. Parties

14. I am concerned with a child who I shall refer to as Cora in this judgment for anonymisation purposes. She is a pre-teenager. She has older siblings who I will refer to Amelia (mid-teens) and Bella (early-teens). I will refer to the mother of all three as the Mother or M. The Children have different fathers. The father of Bella has not been traced, the father of Cora is unknown, neither has played a part in these proceedings. I made final Care Orders in respect of Amelia and Bella on 17 November 2025. The father of Amelia was discharged as a party at that point. Accordingly the parties for this final hearing in respect of Cora are the Local Authority, the Mother and Cora through her Guardian. Background Chronology

15. From the Local Authority case summary dated 2 March 2026:

6. Bella and Cora had been born in Ireland and the wider family is from an Irish background...Concerns were raised about neglectful parenting while in Ireland including concerns of domestic abuse and alcohol misuse. Bella and Cora had then been looked after by an aunt under a family agreement from the respective ages of 3 years old and 10 months old (including when M was in custody for shoplifting in Ireland) until they were 9 and 7 years old respectively. M has three older children from a previous relationship...

7. M moved to England in 2020 with her partner, [X]. In 2022, Bella and Cora moved to Gloucestershire to live with M and [her partner] after their aunt relinquished care of them. On 17th October 2022 Bella and Cora were subject to Child Protection Plans under the category of neglect due to concerns about neglect, alcohol misuse and domestic abuse in the care of family members. That year, M also reported sexual assault by her cousin, [], against Bella (albeit two weeks after). There was an assessment of M and [partner], which deemed that they had capacity to parent Bella and Cora but needed support, with a plan of support ending in May 2023.

8. In December 2023, there was a referral from Education Welfare Service due to M having difficulties in getting Bella to school and that Bella had been messaging older boys and men and asking for sex. A statutory assessment in January 2024 resulted in Bella and Cora being supported under a Child in Need Plan. In May 2024 due to further worries of Bella communicating with older males and exchange of sexual images, a strategy discussion took place and the matter went to an ICPC.

9. Amelia lived with [her father] until July 2024, when she visited M and refused to return to Ireland. The ICPC deemed Bella to be at heightened risk of child sexual exploitation and queries about M’s ability to understand the risks posed to the children by others, and a lack of adherence to safety planning. By the review on 12th August 2024, Bella remained under a CPP under the category of sexual harm.

10. A Parenting Assessment was completed of M in October 2024. It concluded that while M was able to meet some of the basic care needs, her parenting was not safe or consistent enough for Bella and Cora. On 14th October 2024, a strategy discussion took place following a domestic incident between M and [her partner] was disclosed by the children following police attendance as a result of an argument. Section 47 inquiries started. Amelia was the one who had called the police. [The partner] was arrested on suspicion of assaulting M and of strangling her and was given bail conditions not to contact M. The children later retracted their statements. …

12. After Bella informed police that she had unprotected sex with an 18 year old male and this is statutory rape (her being 12 years old at the time), a decision was made to seek legal advice in November 2024. On 3rd December 2024, an ICPC was held for Amelia, with concerns of her communicating sexually with a male online. She was subject to a CPP under sexual harm too.

13. In December 2024, pre-proceedings commenced. A written agreement was implemented on 17th December 2024 [F1-4]. An area of concern was M’s ability to implement boundaries to keep the children safe. M did not attend the initial pre-proceedings meeting and said she had not instructed a solicitor. At the next scheduled meeting, M said she was unwell, and at the next rescheduled date, M was uncontactable. M later said she had been in hospital with a slipped disc. M and Amelia missed her school admissions meeting (6th meeting offered) in January 2025.

14. On 21st January 2025, a pre-proceedings meeting was held at M’s home with proposals set out for the family. Written agreement updated on 23rd January 2025 [F5-8]. A cognitive assessment was completed of M in February 2025. A psychological assessment was completed of the family in April 2025. In June 2025, M reported to the school that the children had not been in school due to a lack of money for transport, that she had no money for food one week and would be waiting 2 weeks to be paid, as well as being in rent arrears.

15. As a result of pre-proceedings, it was proposed that there would be a bespoke package of support in place. However, M and the children would often refuse entry to most of the support workers and cancelled most meetings.

16. All three children were subject to Police Powers of Protection on 4th July 2025 after police were called to the property on 3rd July and 4th July 2025. This was following reports made by neighbours of numerous young men going to the property. When police attended to conduct a welfare check on the morning of 4th July 2025, M was observed to be obstructive to officers coming into the home, saying her daughter was in the bathroom. When officers unlocked the door, two males as described by the neighbour were stood pressed against the bathroom wall. M was arrested on suspicion of causing or inciting a child to engage in prostitution and subject to bail conditions. The two males were 18 and 16 years of age and they were both arrested. …

18. Following M’s arrest and the police exercising their powers of protection, the children were cared for in the home by agency staff while the LA looked for appropriate placements for them, due to M’s bail conditions. The LA then identified a residential placement that could take the three girls together. The girls told professionals that if they could not stay with M then they wanted to be placed together. They were placed at the residential placement [] on 21st July 2025 which is where they have remained since.

16. The Mother agreed to section 20 placement for the Children on expiry of the police protection and thereafter the Children were made subject to Interim Care Orders on 15 July 2025.

17. The Mother has confirmed the police are taking no further action in relation to the matters for which she was arrested (see her statement [C103]).

18. I made final Care Orders for Amelia and Bella on 17 November 2025 with care plans for them to remain placed together with Cora in their residential placement. Current living arrangement

19. Cora remains with her siblings in her residential placement under the Interim Care Order. Parental responsibility is shared between the Mother and Local Authority under the order. Cora’s Father does not have parental responsibility. Positions Local Authority

20. The Local Authority seek a final Care Order with a plan for Cora to remain in the residential placement with her siblings. The plan is for supervised telephone contact between the Mother and Cora once a week and twice monthly direct contact for 3 hours between the Mother and all three children although each having some one to one time with the Mother. The care plan envisages the possibility of all three children moving together to a foster placement. Mother

21. The Mother’s position, until the conclusion of her evidence, was that she sought the return of Cora to her care under any order. At the conclusion of her evidence she changed her position to one of not opposing the Local Authority plan. It is difficult to encapsulate in a few words the undoubted trauma to M in changing her position. Saying she is brave, realistic or focused on what is best for Cora does not fully do her decision justice. It is a life changing decision for her and Cora. It is undoubtedly what is best for Cora and she is to be credited for accepting it; I sincerely hope it brings her peace and allows her to focus on what needs to change in her own life.

22. She denies the recent positive hair strand test result for cocaine but accepts use pre-proceedings. Children’s Guardian

23. The Guardian supports the Local Authority’s plan and recommends the final order recites that the Local Authority can apply for a passport for Cora if parental consent is not given in a reasonable period so that she can go on a planned school trip. Evidence Summary

24. I have considered the bundle, in particular: e) Local authority case summary, M’s and Guardian’s position statement; f) Agreed final threshold [A29]; g) Psychological assessment of Ms Dunham, clinical psychologist, dated 22 April 2025 [E118] and [E226]; h) Sibling assessment dated 23 September 2025 [E273]; i) Local Authority final evidence [C68]; j) Care plan [D52]; k) Hair strand test of the Mother dated 17 December 2025 [E320]; l) Parenting assessments of the Mother [E1] and [E175] by the former social worker Ms Ncube; m) Parenting assessment in relation to Cora only [E301] by the current social worker; n) Mother’s final evidence [C101] and [C108]; and o) Guardian’s final analysis [E339].

25. I heard oral evidence from the previous social worker, Ms Ncube, the current social worker, Ms Mbamuku and the Mother. The Mother had the assistance of an intermediary during the final hearing. Law

26. I remind myself that the burden of proving the need for a public law order rests with the Local Authority on the balance of probabilities. Threshold

27. I must consider if the Local Authority has proved that the threshold test set out in section 31(2) Children Act 1989 is met. It provides: (2) A court may only make a care order or supervision order if it is satisfied – (a) that the child concerned is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm; and (b) that the harm, or likelihood of harm, is attributable to – (i) the care given to the child, or likely to be given to him if the order were not made, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give to him; or (ii) the child’s being beyond parental control. Welfare

28. So far as the law on welfare issues is concerned my paramount concern is the child’s welfare. In assessing whether to make an order I must take account of the matters set out in section 1(3) Children Act 1989 (welfare checklist). I must then have regard to the realistic options put forward taking a holistic and balanced as opposed to linear approach to them consistent with the guidance given in Re B-S (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 1146.

29. In reaching a final decision I must start from the position that the least interventionist alternative is to be preferred applying section 1(5) of the Children Act; I must not make an order unless I consider that doing so would be better for the child than making no order.

30. I remind myself I must also have regard to Article 6 and 8 ECHR rights. Pursuant to Re B (Care: Interference with Family Life) [2003] 2 FLR 813 I must not make a public law order unless I am satisfied it is both necessary and proportionate and no other less radical form of order would achieve the need to promote the welfare of the child.

31. If I make a Care Order I must consider the permanence provisions of the care plan pursuant to section 31(3A) Children Act 1989 and the contact provisions pursuant to section 34(11) Children Act 1989. Risk of Harm

32. When assessing risk of harm I must ask (by reference to the summary in Re T (Children: Risk Assessment) [2025] EWCA Civ 93 at paragraph 33): (1) What type of harm has arisen and might arise? (2) How likely is it to arise? (3) What would be the consequences for the child if it did? (4) To what extent might the risks be reduced or managed? (5) What other welfare considerations have to be taken into account? (6) In consequence, which of the realistic plans best promotes the child’s welfare? (7) If the preferred plan involves interference with the Article 8 rights of the child or of others, is that necessary and proportionate? Threshold

33. I found threshold was met at the hearing on 17 November 2025 when making final orders in relation to Cora’s siblings. The threshold appears at [A29], in summary I found, as agreed: a) Hair strand testing of the Mother conducted on 10 February 2025 showed consumption of cocaine and chronic excessive level of alcohol consumption at the relevant time. Misuse of substances presents a significant risk of physical and emotional harm to the children; b) Amelia and Bella were engaged in inappropriate sexualised behaviour in relation to which the Mother was unable to put in place effective boundaries and the Children (all of them) were at risk of sexual harm; c) The Mother and her ex-partner engaged in domestic abuse which the Children witnessed causing emotional harm; d) The Mother was not able to meet the Children’s emotional, health and educational needs (non-attendance at medical appointments, poor school attendance by the Children and lack of engagement in school meetings by the Mother); and e) The Mother put the Children at risk of emotional and physical harm by not being able to keep them safe from risky individuals. Welfare checklist

34. I now turn now to the considerations under section 1(3) Children Act 1989. Wishes and feelings

35. The care plan reports Cora’s “preference would be to remain residing with her mother…if she is unable to do so then she would like to remain residing with her sisters in their current placement where they are settling in well” [D54]. When giving oral evidence the social worker consistently reported that “she said if it turns out she stays in the placement she would be happy”.

36. In her analysis the Guardian acknowledges this but says: [E349] I do not considered [sic] that Cora is at an age or developmental stage, whereby she understands the concerns of the local authority or the relevance to her safety; and therefore, it is my view that the Court should not place undue weight to Cora’s views. Physical, emotional, educational needs and age, sex and background

37. The care plan records that Cora does not have specific religious, cultural or educational needs or specific health needs [D54]. The psychological assessment records her as “lively, restless” with “fewer difficulties with concentration and impulsivity, although her school are reporting concerns about her attitudes and vulnerabilities” [E124]. It was thought the presentation was “strongly related” to her attachment style and the quality of parenting received, including the sudden return to M’s care [E167]. It was thought that she would “benefit from a form of family intervention that attempts to strengthen attachments and build stronger self-esteem through improving understanding and bonds between parents and children” [E168].

38. The second parenting assessment recorded: [E192] Cora presents as affectionate and helpful but is showing a marked shift towards risk-taking behaviour, including vaping, truancy, conflict with peers, and the use of inappropriate sexualised and aggressive language. Her school attendance is low at 68%, with frequent complaints of illness reported by her mother. These emerging behaviours suggest early signs of psychosocial vulnerability.

39. The sibling assessment records the current placement meeting the children’s individual needs with structured routines and boundaries in place [E298] and the Local Authority’s final statement notes that since being in the residential placement Cora has “excelled by engaging in activities such as swimming” and “has been adhering to the boundaries and rules at the placement” and has started school and made some friends although she “has struggled emotionally” [C82]. The care plan records the placement being “stable” with staff developing positive relationships with Cora [D57] and the Guardian concurs saying it is a “suitable therapeutic placement” meeting Cora’s needs and “providing her with the stability that she requires” [E344]. When the social worker gave oral evidence she confirmed that Cora needs “reparative parenting”.

40. The Guardian reports from the placement: [E341] Cora is now in a cheerleading troop and will be taking part in competitions around the country and will have the opportunity to go to Paris to compete if we can sort her passport. Likely effect of change in circumstances

41. Under the Local Authority plan there would be no change in circumstances.

42. On the Mother’s case initial case Cora would have been separated from Amelia and Bella.

43. The Sibling Assessment identifies the children as being “very close” with their confidence improving around each other [E284], having a strong sibling bond and being very supportive of each other [E285] with a strong sense of “togetherness” [E285]. These positive relationships will no doubt be impacted if the children were to be separated and I can infer some emotional harm as a result although perhaps on the Mother’s initial case this would have been mitigated by the knowledge one of the children has returned to M’s care and by sibling contact arrangements. Capability of the Mother Generally

44. By way of overall summary the second parenting assessment considered: [E188] The cumulative concerns centre on chronic neglect, exposure to risk of sexual harm, domestic abuse, emotional harm, poor school attendance, missed health appointments and M’s persistent lack of meaningful engagement and protective capacity. These concerns have not been mitigated through Child Protection Planning, and PLO Pre-Proceedings.

45. That is mirrored in the third assessment [E311].

46. When the social worker gave evidence she was taken to a recent GP record from 6 November 2025 which recorded that the Mother told the GP “children were removed due to false allegations”, “custody remains unresolved due to concerns about mental health” and that the social worker was resistant to returning Cora to M’s care “despite court’s inclination to do so” [E338i]. The social worker agreed that was not a correct summary by M and if this is an accurate record (M disputes it is) it is concerning so late in proceedings that M’s insight is limited.

47. M accepts missing 2 contact sessions (they are fortnightly) saying her car broke down and she could not afford it [C116]. In relation to the latter point the social worker’s evidence was that M had never requested financial assistance in getting to contact but support will now be provided.

48. On the positive side the third parenting assessment recorded warm and loving interactions between M and the Children [E215]. Implementation of Boundaries

49. M’s difficulty with implementing boundaries consistently was noted in the first parenting assessment, the example given being that “there is a noted pattern where M would take Bella’s phone away when she has communicated with males online and later giving Bella another phone without additional safeguards in place. This has been a recurring pattern for the last two years.” [E55] (and see E39]. It was said she can meet Cora’s “basic care needs” couldn’t not keep her safe with “consistent boundaries” [E57] and: [E56] M loves and cares for her children, genuinely wanting the best for them. She is a mother striving to keep her children safe. However, her challenges primarily stem from her difficulty in implementing effective strategies, trauma, and due to a lack of positive parenting role modelling throughout her upbringing. [E57] …this lack of consistency has fostered a power dynamic in which the children, particularly Bella, may feel emboldened to exert control over their surroundings, often leaving M feeling powerless. Additionally, having been separated from her children in the past, M may now be overcompensating by allowing them more freedom, perhaps as a way to make up for her previous absence. This tendency to overcompensate can further erode her authority, making it difficult to establish and maintain boundaries effective [sic].

50. The concern was evidenced in part by this report: [E194] 4.7 We discussed worries about Amelia live-streaming on Snapchat despite a safety plan in place. I showed M the pictures of Amelia live-streaming on Snapchat, which she was able to confirm were of Amelia. She confirmed that the pictures were of Amelia’s bedroom. M reported that she was not aware of Amelia live-streaming, as Amelia had no access to social media or a phone. I asked to see the phone she had taken from Amelia, which she reported she had sold. She then mentioned that she had bought Amelia a PlayStation for Christmas, which was not in line with the agreed safety plan. She queried if Amelia had accessed social media via her PlayStation. After initially denying accessing social media, Amelia later reported that she had taken her mother’s phone while she was sleeping. [E196] 4.13 We also discussed reports that Bella was active on social media, where she had posted pictures of herself. Bella denied having access to social media. Interestingly, M asked if we could look up an account, which coincidentally was the same account Bella was accessing. M stated that she had seen a green dot next to the account when it was on social media, which she understood to mean that the account was active. Sadly, M had not taken any action to address this with Bella. 4.14 M advised that the previous week, while she was on social media, there was a male called LB (19) who was live-streaming, stating that he was looking for Bella’s ‘addy’ (address) because he wanted to find her as he was not happy with Bella telling everyone that they had slept together at [] Youth Club. She stated that she put the information together and realised that this was in relation to the incident where Bella initially reported that she had sex with LB from Southampton, later changing to A from Oxford. M did not report this to the police or any professionals until now. It is concerning that a threat to Bella’s safety was not reported by her mother despite numerous safety plans advising of this.

51. The conclusion in the second parenting assessment was that M was aware of gaps but had not implemented preventative measures [E200] and “tends to place trust in her children’s accounts without adequate monitoring of their activities in the community” [E201].

52. In her final statement the social worker gave evidence that whilst in M’s care Cora “started to mimic” her siblings behaviour (exposing themselves to unknown males) by placing a video on TikTok at age 10 “dancing in crop tops and wearing makeup” and her primary school noticed that her behaviour “towards boys in her class was beginning to be concerning” [C81-82]. Now out of M’s care that has ceased (social worker’s oral evidence).

53. The third assessment noted M understood the concerns leading to her children being police protected “but does not agree that she was to be blamed…she was not aware that the males were in her daughter’s bedroom” [E313]. There was a concern (I am not being asked to make a finding on it) that M had provided vapes to the Children in the placement [E303]. There was a concern M was still not supporting boundaries in placement (Amelia took M’s phone and staff encouraged Amelia to instead engage with M but M did not discourage Amelia from using the phone and trying to get online [E306]) and then: [E317] 8.5.1 . M seem to lack the ability to exercise her parental authority. She has not been able to challenge by way of advising and cautioning Cora and Amelia when they continuously use her phone despite staff asking them to stop using their mum’s phone. Amelia accesses tiktok in her presence and she was unable to take the phone and keep away. M has also struggled to be honest with the children about the reason why they are in care. She blames professionals and have not been able to tell Amelia and Bella that she supports the LA’s plan for them to remain in care. [sic]

54. This latter point feeds into the conclusion below about wanting to avoid emotional conflict with the children; it was particularly marked when I met the children because I was aware the Mother’s case was that Amelia and Bella should remain in foster care but she had not yet told them that as was clear from what they were telling me.

55. M says that she “was able to complete some work with a Family Support Worker” which she found helpful [C105]. Whilst she pointed to a distinction between the behaviours of Amelia and Bella she acknowledged it was only when Bella turned 11 that “she started to show sexual behaviours” and did not want to go to school; that is the approximate age of Cora now. She also accepted that when Cora first moved to be with her Cora’s behaviours were not like Bella’s and Amelias but it started to become so.

56. During the course of M’s oral evidence I became increasingly concerned about her inability to stick to safety plans and recognise what safe and protective behaviour even looked like: a) M agreed that in May 2024, despite a safety plan that provided for Bella not to use “gadgets” (i.e. internet enabled devices), M allowed her to do so; b) Whilst she asked Bella’s friend’s mother to ensure the friend did not allow Bella to use the friend’s phone Bella reported she had been able to use another friend's phone in the park. M did not know who Bella was in the park with in July 2024 so it would seem an obvious risk; c) Despite Amelia not having a phone until early November 2024 just 12 days later she was messaging a male online in Australia, M thought the person was Amelia’s age but accepted she did not know, she had no way of verifying it. She seemed ambivalent to the risk; d) Although M asserted that she had not given Bella a phone that she was using in November 2024 Bella reported to the police not only that she had a phone but that M was aware because she was able to track her on it which is why when she met someone aged 18 for sexual intercourse (which in the criminal jurisdiction would be chargeable as the offence of sexual activity with a child) she left her phone at a youth centre (police disclosure [G5]). M could not advance any explanation for why Bella may have made that up; e) In relation to M becoming aware of the male looking for Bella’s “addy” in April 2025 M delayed informing the social worker for a week notwithstanding this was a person who, on Bella’s account, had sexually abused her as set out above. This was notwithstanding there was still on ongoing police investigation. Her only explanation was “I thought if he came to my address I’d sort it myself”; f) M conceded Amelia and Bella “were too much to handle…I let them walk all over me”; g) In January 2025 M agreed that she would ensure the Children were supervised in the community after Amelia came home with love bites yet she admitted there were times she did not; h) In cross-examination M eventually accepted that on 17 December 2024 she had agreed a safety plan that included not to have people sleeping over in the home and not to allow the children to sleep over in other homes, she initially denied the latter until presented with the written evidence at [F3]. When, on 4 July 2025, two males were found in the bathroom of the home Cora was not at home “she was having a sleep over” elsewhere. M agreed this was contrary to the safety plan; i) She also agreed that on a date she thought was at the end of July 2025 but must have been before 4 July 2025 she allowed a male friend of Cora’s to stay overnight in the home. When I asked her why she gave the flimsiest of explanations: “Cora asked if she could have a friend over because [the friend’s mother] was going out for the night”; j) She agreed a male attended the home in June 2025 from London to see Amelia, he was looking for Amelia, said she was his girlfriend and he understood she was 16-17 which she was not, she was, “concerned about Amelia being sexually active with that boy and her lying about her age all the time” yet she did not tell the social worker about it, “as a mother I just dealt with it myself, I didn’t think”; k) Despite males being found in the home on 21 May 2025, apparently without M’s knowledge, on 4 July 2025 the same thing happened again. I asked what she had done to be more alert or to avoid a repeat in circumstances where she had said she slept with the door to her bedroom closed, she accepted she could have kept the internal doors open, and maybe “kept an eye on them more than I did”; and l) Even at the time of the goodbye contact Amelia and Bella had asked for vapes and M accepted taking them to the contact. Mental Health

57. A cognitive assessment dated 28 February 2025 indicated that M had considerably below average cognition. She has been assisted by an intermediary at this final hearing. The assessment suggested symptoms of ADHD and autistic traits.

58. The psychological assessment of the Mother dated 22 April 2025 records: [E122] M has had a very neglectful and abusive childhood where she did not feel wanted, loved, or protected. She did not attend school after the age of 13, and continues to struggle with literacy skills, with a reading age of around seven years, and difficulty with writing and spelling…She currently presents as socially anxious, unable to leave the home alone, and shows indications of complex trauma resulting from her childhood experiences and the difficulties in her relationship…as well as her separation from her children. I do not consider that M shows signs of bipolar disorder, at present, and the current assessment indicates that it is likely that she has always shown symptoms of underlying neurodiversity, particularly ADHD, which will have affected her more noticeably during childhood, and at school, and she also shows a higher than average level of symptoms of ASD, mainly relating to social anxieties, difficulty with change and understanding others intentions. In terms of personality traits, M has dominant traits that are depressive, avoidant, paranoid, schizotypal, and negativistic. This means that she is showing signs of poor self-esteem, social anxieties, attachment insecurities, a rather depressive outlook, and expectation that things will go wrong. She is socially wary, expects rejection, can feel misunderstood and unappreciated. [E166] …this level of cognitive difficulty is not usually considered to be a barrier to effective parenting, particularly if a parent has had a good experience of being parented themselves. Unfortunately for M, her own experiences have not provided her with a good role model, the children have not been in her continuous care and have experienced different parenting styles in different environments. I consider that M would benefit from specific input to consider the children's experiences and role models to date, how they respond to parental advice and guidance, and her own ability to put in nurturing boundaries. [E170] I consider that M requires therapeutic, and possibly, medical intervention in her own right, to overcome the effects of her previous traumas and current anxieties. She can be referred by her GP for psychological input in relation to trauma and its aftereffects. [E171] I would like M to be able to engage with individual therapy which may not be available for some months after referral due to waiting times. She is likely to need input for at least 6 months to a year. [E228] In general, the type of therapy that I am recommending should not be destabilising to the point that children cannot remain in a parent’s care…

59. “Fleeting thoughts of self-harm” were reported to the GP on 16 December 2025 [E338m].

60. The third parenting assessment considered there was “no evidence to indicate that M has contacted her GP and has not been offered an appointment” in relation to her mental health [E311].

61. M says that she has tried to get a GP appointment and finally attended on 6 November 2025 and was prescribed sertraline and was signposted “to organisations that might be able to assist me further in light of the recommendations made” in the psychological report [C104]. I note this is some 7 months after the report and on any view there has been little progress. M’s most recent statement records she has completed a form for talking therapy with MIND [C114]. Drugs and Alcohol

62. The Hair Strand Testing dated 10 February 2025 is summarised by the Local Authority in this way:

60. M tested positive for cocaine (medium range) and its metabolites which suggested ingestion of cocaine between October 2024 and January 2025. Cocaethylene indicates cocaine and alcohol had been taken together. It was noted that M had dyed her hair (weekly) a week before sample collection. Alcohol testing suggested chronic excessive alcohol consumption in that time period too. M did not declare any substance misuse but indicated she drank 4-5 cans of beer a week usually.

63. M had not disclosed illicit drug use or passive exposure at the time of that test [E65] and when spoken to about drug misuse on 14 August 2025 she had denied ever using cocaine (see [E314/4.12] and the social worker’s oral evidence about the timing of that conversation) although now M says she does not deny using cocaine pre-proceedings (see threshold response at [C102]). It is clear there has been dishonesty from M in relation to this.

64. And for 17 December 2025: M tested positive for active consumption of cocaine between August and November 2025 (medium range with a slight increase in the middle segment). Cocaethyne was again detected. Hair strand results did not suggest chronic excessive alcohol misuse in that period, showing a moderate consumption at minimum. However, PETH testing suggested excessive alcohol consumption from early November to early December 2025 . M did not declare any substance misuse, but declared drinking between 6-8 bottles of Bud Light a week. Hair treatment was again declared.

65. The report records: [E328] In this case, the EtG concentration is close to the cut-off for excessive alcohol consumption. The result is below so does not demonstrate excessive alcohol consumption during the representative time period. However, due to the concentration detected, the results support, at minimum , the moderate consumption of alcohol over the representative time period… The concentration of phosphatidylethanol (PEth) is high and demonstrates that the donor has ingested alcohol excessively during the approximate 28-day period prior to sample collection.

66. This appears to be at odds with M’s assertion of drinking “6-7 cans of Budweiser Light” each week [C115].

67. Whilst I understand M disputes these findings I find them proved on the balance of probabilities. They are consistent with previous testing and M not receiving any meaningful input from substance misuse services since the previous testing. I note that on 13 March 2025 the Change Grow Live worker informed the social worker: [E213] 6.27 I have just visited with M, on further discussion she has asked not to be open to CGL. She feels that the possible risk of harm to herself and children of her using Alcohol and Cocaine no longer exists as her Ex-partner no longer is a part of her life and this was her only access to Cocaine.

68. M has not sent questions to the testing company, provided any possible explanation for the positive test nor applied for re-testing of the sample or another test. Further, it is consistent with her dishonesty in relation to the February testing.

69. The effect of this is summarised by the Guardian saying, “It is likely that M’s level of attentiveness emotional regulation and general availability to Cora would be negatively impacted through her use of alcohol and cocaine; leading to deficits within Cora’s experience of care” [E347]. I would add that dishonest misreporting of drug use by M is also a risk. Domestic Abuse

70. M has spoken about her partner physically assaulting her in Ireland and the parenting assessor (second assessment) reflected on why M allowed them to return home after requesting bail conditions were removed. M said the partner “had promised to change [their] behaviour” but the partner was “jealous of her spending time with her children”. Thereafter M asked the partner to leave and was supported by a domestic abuse practitioner but still was “uncertain about the future of relationship” [E197]. M accepted the partner was “emotionally abusive” particularly to Amelia [E197] but despite this, in the final parenting assessment “M has argued that she had always maintained that she was still in a relationship with [the partner] and that [they] only moved to Birmingham. M has attended family time with [the partner]…M has dismissed the concerns and has continued the relationship without any evidence that [the partner] has accessed help and support” [E314].

71. M has confirmed that the relationship with her partner resumed in March 2025 [C105]. When she was giving her evidence in chief she explained that they “won’t live together again” and I asked her why. She replied, “When we lived together it was toxic, we do fight, we fought in the past and think living separately is better”. This gives me no confidence that M has really understood the risk. A “toxic” relationship is unlikely to be solved by only seeing each other at weekends.

72. As M’s evidence progressed I became more and more concerned about this aspect of the case. M agreed that in March 2025 she had asked for a new social worker because her partner “told me to”, she agreed she was putting her partner first. She accepted they have “been violent to me in the past” and had been violent in front of the Children (although she said only once). She asked for charges against her partner in relation to the incident in October 2024 to be dropped and said that was “an example of me being terrified of [them]”. Despite being assisted to separate from the partner in February 2025 “about a week before my sessions with the domestic abuse worker ended” her partner kept ringing her during an appointment with the worker “and [they were] screaming and shouting and I said I’d text [] later” and after the worker left she contacted her partner. I asked her why and she said the partner, “was threatening to come and kill me if I didn’t contact [then] to try to sort things out”. I acknowledge this must have been very frightening but the domestic abuse worker was actually there, in the room, to assist in just this scenario. She was pressed further and said, “we said we’d give it a go, [they] had changed…it is a bad idea, we shouldn’t have got back together, I would leave [them] now, I would be scared, I have friends in [], they know what [] is like”. Even with the threat of continuing separation from her youngest child M has not effected change.

73. In closing submissions, in line with her overall change in position, she now seeks immediate assistance to end her relationship with her partner. School Attendance and Neglect

74. Poor school attendance over a number of years was noted in the first parenting assessment [E56].

75. In the second parenting assessment the assessor recorded: [E199] 4.31 I explained that missed health appointments remain a concern. During my visit to the home on 28th April 2025, M appeared to have forgotten about Bella’s appointment with the Community Paediatric Team. She stated, “Now that you mention it, I remember,” and then added that Bella had refused to attend. This left me concerned, as it was unclear how Bella could have refused an appointment that M had initially forgotten.

76. In cross-examination M admitted she missed a meeting with school about Cora’s declining attendance on 21 January 2025, she agreed, “I didn’t go, no reason, that’s not good enough”.

77. She also admitted missing an enuresis appointment for Bella on 24 March 2025 because M and Bella argued in the car on the way and M “backed down” and “turned around and went back home” and then cancelled a rescheduled appointment on 28 April 2025 because Bella did not want to go [E210].

78. She admitted missing Edge of Care meetings because she, “was ill, I forgot about appointments, they are not good enough reasons”. Conclusions

79. In terms of capacity to change the social worker conducting the second assessment thought M appeared to shift between contemplation and pre-contemplation (Prochaska and DiClemente Cycle of Change) [E216] and that she finds it difficult to assert parental authority when that may result in emotional conflict [E218].

80. Ms Mbamuku concluded M was “not currently in a position to provide a safe and nurturing home environment for Cora” [E318] and the Guardian says “it is difficult to see how past parenting difficulties will not resurface for Cora” [E345] and more specifically: [E347] 19… All of these factors could increase Cora’s vulnerability to contextual safeguarding risks outside of the home particularly as she approaches adolescence and her need for independence and autonomy increases.

20. It is clear that Cora’s needs were not being met when in the care of her mother. Her school attendance was well below the expected level and her presentation at school was observed to be ‘flirty’ and ‘attention seeking’ of boys, which would not have been developmentally typical. It is likely that M’s difficulty in safeguarding Amelia and Bella and installing appropriate boundaries and parental control, filtered down to Cora thus impacting her ability to attend school regularly. Cora has seen her sisters not adhering to the rules and boundaries of their mother, and it is probable that Cora may feel that she also does not need to respect rules and guidance offered to keep her safe.

81. When giving oral evidence the social worker said that reunification would remain a possibility in the future but M would need to gain more parenting support in terms of boundaries, understanding the risks of exploitation and work around domestic abuse and accessing mental health support. She agreed the care plan could be amended to record the Local Authority will consider funding CBT for M. Capability of others

82. No other family member has been identified as able to care for Cora but M has put forward her older daughter to help her; she is 22 and moved in with M in August 2025 [C105] although is now said to be living separately but locally [C118]. In cross-examination M accepted that, “she can’t offer much help because she’s working”. Any harm suffered or at risk of suffering

83. I have addressed this above when considering the capability of the Mother but it is helpfully summarised by the Guardian in this way: [E348]

27. The lived experience and the potential risks for Cora are not entirely aligned to those of her sisters, as she is younger and has had different life experiences. Cora will however have been undoubtedly exposed to her sister’s involvement with older boys and susceptibility to CSE, she will have observed her mother’s difficulty in installing appropriate and safe boundaries for them and she will have been impacted by her mother’s substance misuse and poor mental health. Cora’s ability to attend school regularly, was negatively impacted, when in her mother’s care.

84. One specific example is Cora reporting to placement staff on 5 February 2026 that whilst in the care of M she had seen Amelia with a naked male in her bedroom and she was “riding him”, she could not remember who it was “as they’re use to be a lot who came round. Cora says like 20” [sic] [H31]. M could think of no reason why Cora would have lied about this, she had “never known her to make things up” and “there’s a good chance it could be true”.

85. Another is that at a time when Cora was 10 she made a TikTok video showing her “wearing lots of makeup and little clothing, dancing inappropriately for her age…twerking and lifting her top up high” [Contact bundle A40]. Although M says the video was made after 4 July 2025, immediately after the Children were removed from her care, it is indicative of the effect of M’s lack of boundaries on Cora.

86. Further in relation to M’s partner I asked M why she now says she wishes she had not got back together; she said it was because of the effect on her children and I asked what confidence I could have that she would separate if I agreed with her case (as it was then) that Cora should be returned to her care. She said, “I will, I’m terrified of [them], I’m not as terrified…[they] would remain threatening” and when asked what effect that might have on Cora she acknowledged it would be, “real bad”. Range of powers

87. Whilst the Guardian supports the Local Authority care plan she cautions that “it remains my strong professional view that the appropriateness of Cora being placed alongside her older sisters needs to be kept under close consideration” as she is concerned about “the unintentional influence Bella and Amelia may have upon Cora” [E350]. She also says this about the prospects of a childhood in care: [E351] Cora may feel different to her peers, and she may find it annoying or inconvenient to continually have Looked-After child meetings and visits from her social worker. There is also the risk that Cora may experience instability within her care arrangements, placements can sometimes break down for a number of reasons or funding agreements can be disallowed. A rupture in Cora’s placement could represent further significant loss and instability for Cora, which has the potential to cause her emotional harm, feelings of rejection and loss and could lead to difficulties settling in a new placement.

88. On the plus side Cora “has been able to accept safe care from the adults looking after her, she has been able to form positive relationships, and she is relishing the opportunities and boundaries that have been provided to her over recent months” [E352].

89. The Guardian recommends a recital to the effect the Local Authority may apply for a passport for Cora in the absence of parental consent. M disagreed with this for “fear of someone taking her out of the country” but in closing submissions changed her position to positively support a recital to that effect.

90. There was the following exchange with counsel for the Guardian at the conclusion of M’s evidence: Q You are saying you want Cora back to your care, we all understand that; do you think in all honesty that’s realistic? A I think it’s realistic. Q The Guardian says, in essence, if you do the recommended work we can look at Cora coming back to you then, is that sensible? A Yes. Q Do you accept you need to address mental health needs, the therapy the psychologist recommended, healthy relationship work, further parenting work? A Yes. Q Until you’ve done that it’s not the right time for Cora to come back to you. A I agree. Holistic balancing exercise

91. I come now to consider the balancing exercise that is required by B-S . Realistic Option 1: Separation and Care Order in residential placement Factors in favour Factors against Safe care Remaining a looked after child Placed with siblings Contrary to expressed wishes of Cora Continuation of current arrangement Continued separation from M Contact with M will continue Risk of placement breakdown and/or separation from siblings Realistic Option 2: With Mother under a Care/Supervision Order Factors in favour Factors against Consistent with wishes of Cora Remaining a looked after child (under a Care Order) Cared for by a parent Separation from siblings Local Authority oversight Risk of child sexual exploitation Risk of neglect (unmet educational needs) Risk of emotional harm from domestic abuse between M and partner Risk of emotional harm from M’s use of cocaine Realistic Option 3: With Mother without a public law order Factors in favour Factors against Consistent with wishes of Cora Separation from siblings Cared for by a parent Risk of child sexual exploitation End of Local Authority intervention Risk of neglect (unmet educational needs) Risk of emotional harm from domestic abuse between M and partner Risk of emotional harm from M’s use of cocaine Comparison of Options

92. In light of M’s changed position it is straightforward to reach a conclusion. The risks for Cora in the care of the Mother far exceed the disadvantages of separation under the Local Authority care plan. I have set the risks out above under the heading “Capability of the Mother” and the “Harm suffered or likely to be suffered”. I do not need to repeat them. Whilst there are disadvantages to a Care Order nothing else can keep Cora safe at the moment and it is necessary and proportionate. Conclusion

93. In light of the above analysis I make a final Care Order pursuant to section 31 Children Act 1989 and approve the care plan. I approve the care plan in respect of contact arrangements. The Local Authority will file an amended plan setting out the work that M needs to undertake, a confirmation of referral to the funding panel to assist M with therapy and a commitment to review whether the placement with her siblings continues to meet Cora’s needs in future as part of the LAC review process.

94. In relation to the passport I cannot make a Specific Issue Order as a Care Order has been made. The Local Authority share parental responsibility but have a duty to consult M. I cannot see any justification for M’s initial objection to the Local Authority obtaining a passport for C. It is manifestly in Cora’s best interests to have one as, at the very least, it would enable her to participate in a trip to France to further her interest in cheerleading. There will be a recital to the effect the court has formed this view. It does not seem to me necessary for the Local Authority to make any form of application to the court, rather it is a power that may be exercised under section 33(3) Children Act 1989.

95. As I promised Cora when I met her I have prepared a letter for her explaining my decision.

96. I encourage M to engage with the recommended work. It is important for all three Children that she does so and I wish her the best in that. In due course it might be safe for Cora to return to her care. Her acceptance it is not safe for now is an encouraging start.