A Local Authority v Mother & Ors [2026] EWFC 93 (B) (04 February 2026)

Neutral Citation Number: [2026] EWFC 93 (B) Case No: LV25C50498 IN THE FAMILY COURT AT LIVERPOOL 35 Vernon Street Liverpool L2 2BX 4 February 2026 B e f o r e : HIS HONOUR JUDGE PARKER ____________________ Between: A LOCAL AUTHORITY Applicant - and - (1) MOTHER (2) FATHER (3) THE CHILD (Children's Guardian) Respondents ____________________ Digital Transcription by Marten Walsh Cherer Ltd. 2nd Floor, Quality House, 6-9 Quality Court, Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1HP. Telephone No: 020 7067 2900. DX 410 LDE Email: info@martenwalshcherer.com Web: www.martenwalshcherer.com ____________________ MR TAYLOR for the Applicant MS MALLON for the First Respondent MS WRENN for the Second Respondent MR HAGGIS for the Children's Guardian ____________________ HTML VERSION OF JUDGMENT ____________________ Crown Copyright © This Transcript is Crown Copyright. It may not be reproduced in whole or in part other than in accordance with relevant licence or with the express consent of the Authority. All rights are reserved. HIS HONOUR JUDGE PARKER: This is the judgment in the case of (redacted) Local Authority, represented by Mr Taylor, Mother (M), represented by Ms Mallon, Father (F), represented by Ms Wrenn and the child with whom I am concerned, A, who is appearing through his children's guardian, Ms Karen McTavish, represented by Mr Haggis. The background is that A is five years old. A's mother, M, initially lived with her mother in Czechoslovakia. However, she was the victim of sexual abuse by her mother's friend. Unsurprisingly, that resulted in challenging behaviour exhibited by M with the result that M's mother asked M's father, F, to care for M from the age of about 12 or 13. She moved to live with her father. She gave birth to A in 2020. For the first five years of A's life, he lived with his mother and his then 'grandfather'. In 2025, the mother left the United Kingdom and returned to the Czech Republic stating that she did not wish to care for A. She initially maintained that A's father was British and that she had conceived after a one-night stand. She said she did not know his identity. A was left in the care of his 'grandfather'. At this stage, no one was exercising parental responsibility for the child. The mother would not give the local authority the details of A's father. Subsequently, information was given to the local authority that the mother and her biological father, F, might have been having an incestuous relationship. On or around 6 August 2025 the allocated social worker had a telephone conversation with M and the mother confirmed that A's biological father is in fact her own biological father, F. She said that they had been having a sexual relationship for seven years since she was about 17 or 18 years of age. A believed and continues to believe that F is his maternal grandfather. The local authority made an application for a care order in August 2025. This court made an interim care order on 8 August 2025 and approved the removal of the child into foster care. A's father was joined as a party. DNA testing has indeed confirmed that F is A's birth father. The Parties' Positions. The local authority seeks care and placement orders in respect of A. They intend to carry out a simultaneous search for an adoptive placement and also a placement for long-term foster care. The search for an adoptive placement will be limited to six to nine months to avoid any sense that A is left in limbo for any greater period of time particularly bearing in mind his age. Their position on contact, the mother not seeking contact, is that in the event of adoption the local authority would seek to find a placement where the adopters were agreeable to direct contact on two occasions each year. In the event of a long-term foster care placement the proposal would be direct contact with the father six times per annum. That is because A's behaviour and presentation are likely to be significantly affected as his knowledge and understanding of his life journey increases and it is felt that contact taking place in the school holidays would be less disruptive to his education and enable a settling down period after any such contact. It would also enable him to settle and invest in his new placement. His current foster carers have given notice on the placement and, therefore, he will need to move in any event. The local authority will endeavour to find a suitable long-term foster care placement so that if they are unable to match with adopters then there will not need to be yet another move. The mother supports the local authority's case that there should be a placement order so that A can be placed with a forever family and enjoy normal family life. She does not pursue any contact with A. She cannot cope with this emotionally. She wishes to have a full break from F. F seeks the return of A to his care. He is wholly opposed to adoption. Even if the placement is in long-term foster care, then the F's case is that there should be a plan for return to his care once work has been undertaken. The children's guardian supports the local authority's care plan now. The matter was listed before me for a final composite hearing for one day. The Evidence I have had regard to the bundle of documents provided to me. I have listened to the oral evidence of F, the allocated social worker, and the children's guardian. The mother did not wish to give evidence. I have also had very helpful succinct submissions from counsel on behalf of each of the parties. I am very grateful for the measured way in which they have each dealt with this very sensitive case. F's Oral Evidence F said that he wished for A to return to his care now. If not now, then there should be a plan for his return in the future. If in long-term foster care, then he should see H face-to-face once per month and also once by video in between. He accepted that A needs to have work done with him to explain his life story. That should be done by experts. He said that when the mother had moved in with him at that stage they had no relationship. She had moved to live with him because she was at risk of going into care in Czechoslovakia because her mother was not coping with her. He accepted that she was sexually abused by her own mother's friend who was an adult. He accepted that she moved to him needing a safe place. She needed a place where she would be protected and he also agreed that she was vulnerable. He accepted that he was her designated protector. He accepted that he started a sexual relationship with her but maintained that that was when she was an adult. He maintained that it was not just his decision. He admitted that he carries a bigger part of the responsibility. He said that at the time he was convinced that she was not his daughter. He did not see the relationship as starting between them as a bad thing. When he was told that the local authority wanted to put A up for adoption then he started to think about it. He said that he had been unable to speak about it. He had a block in him in not viewing his daughter as his daughter. He said that in his head he could not view her as his daughter and needed to work to change his mindset. It was the local authority's decision to pursue adoption that enabled him to unblock. He suggested that it was their joint decision to start a sexual relationship and he did not think of himself as being the older trusted male figure. He maintained that he did not abuse his position and did not intend to do something wrong. When it was put to him that he was the trusted adult father and carer to protect her, he said "I cannot answer this". He said that he was aware that the relationship was wrong and could lead to an arrest. However, he said, "Love is stronger". He maintained it was a choice and was not abuse. The relationship did not start with him deciding to abuse her. It developed of its own accord. He accepted that it was his job to prevent it starting. He said that he hoped that there would be no impact on A when he found out who his father was. He needed to know that things like that should not happen. However, the fact that it had happened should not change anything about his life. He was loved by both parents, so hopefully no impact on him. The child was wanted. He said I do not think it should be a burden on him. It was put to him that A would be devastated on learning of the facts. The father replied, "It does not have to be devastating for him if explained in the right way that his father loves him. Things can be explained so he does not feel unwanted." It was put to him that between the ages of 12 and 17, 18 he had cared for M as his daughter. However, he maintained that he still did not view her as his daughter even though he looked after her, provided food and clothing for her, supported her educationally and so on. He maintained that neither of them felt like they were in a father daughter relationship. It was put to him and he accepted that he is 28 years older than the mother. The social worker confirmed that there were positives in the F's case. During the parenting assessment, he demonstrated a good understanding across all domains of basic parenting. He attended contact regularly. He brought in appropriate food and snacks. There was a close bond between the F and A. He showed strong commitment to A. He was cooperative with professionals. He was saying that he would cooperate with the local authority to achieve A being returned to his care. However, the social worker said that the overriding issues in the case were around his lack of insight into his own behaviour and his lack of sexual boundaries as well as his lack of insight into the impact on the mother and also on A. That gave rise to an unassessable and unmanageable risk of harm both emotional and sexual to A. There was a recognition that discovery of A's life journey would have a profound impact on him that was lifelong and there would need to be life story and other therapeutic work provided for A that would evolve over time and require specialist input. In terms of contact, it was felt that post-adoption contact should be twice face-to-face contact per annum with some indirect contact. If long-term foster care, then six times per annum so that the impact of contact on A's presentation and behaviour could be managed within school holidays to lessen any disruption to his education and social life. The children's guardian gave evidence which was largely to confirm her agreement to the local authority's current care plan. Threshold It is agreed between the parties that the threshold is met for the making of public law orders pursuant to section 31 of the Children Act 1989 in that at the time that proceedings were commenced the child, A, was suffering and was likely to suffer significant harm and the harm, or likelihood of harm, was attributable to the care given to A, 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. The parties agreed a threshold document which was sent to me. I set out the agreed findings below. At the date the local authority commenced proceedings: 1) The child had been placed by the mother with her father, F, who A understands to be his maternal grandfather. However, F is the child's father confirmed by DNA test. 2) Knowledge of this will have a significant impact on A's emotional wellbeing and places the child at risk of significant emotional harm. 3) The child was not registered at a GP and his health needs were unknown. He is shortly to undergo genetic testing. 4) The child was residing in temporary accommodation with his father and there was a risk that the child would become homeless if he remained in his father's care. 5) The child has suffered and/or was at risk of suffering significant sexual and emotional harm by being exposed to the blurred sexual boundaries displayed by his parents. 6) The child was conceived as a result of an incestuous sexual relationship between the mother and her biological father, F, which was ongoing for approximately seven years, which was a criminal offence under the Sexual Offenses Act 1956. 7) The child was living in the home whilst his mother and his father and grandfather were involved in a sexual relationship and A witnessed or was at risk of witnessing the blurred sexual boundaries displayed by his parents. 8) The child has been left in the sole care of his father who has a conviction for affray in 2023, for which he received a suspended sentence of imprisonment, and a caution for battery in 2007. Additional Findings Before making any additional findings, I remind myself that the burden of proof rests with the local authority to satisfy me on a balance of probabilities in respect of any factual matter that they allege against the father. He has to prove nothing. I also remind myself that people tell lies when they give evidence and that is not necessarily an admission of guilt of those matters of which allegations have been made. I am satisfied as to the following: a. As a child under the age of 12, the mother was subjected to sexual abuse perpetrated by an unnamed male friend of her own mother. b. As a result of the emotional sequelae of that abuse and its impact on the mother, the maternal grandmother asked F to care for her. c. When the mother, M, moved to her father's care she was then particularly vulnerable and frightened of men. In taking over the care of his daughter, F was accepting a protective and caring role for his daughter. d. It was implicit in that role that he was also accepting a position of trust. e. His decision then to enter a sexual relationship with his own vulnerable daughter 28 years his junior was a gross beach of that trust. f. That reprehensible breach of trust was significantly exacerbated by his decision to research into and plan for the procreation of a child between them. g. Rather than becoming wracked with guilt and shame, in my judgment he has sought to wriggle out of full responsibility for his own actions and failings by seeking to suggest that to him M was emotionally more akin to a friend than a daughter as he had not cared for her up to the age of 12 or 13. h. He sought to explain away the sexual relationship and the decision to have a child by suggesting that it was a case of love conquering all, that this was in some way a mutual decision by two adults of their own free will and he dismissed any suggestions of grooming. i. I did not believe him. In my judgment, he was seeking to minimise his own actions and demonstrated no insight at all into the harm that has been caused to the mother. j. That emotional harm was so visceral during her remote attendance at the first case management hearing. Indeed, so much so that I was very concerned for her emotional wellbeing and asked the local authority to do what it could to liaise with the Czech authorities to make sure that the mother had emotional support in place. k. The father on the other hand has appeared bereft of contrition, even if he did pay some lip service to it by seeking to suggest that after reflection he now recognised that what he had done was wrong. l. Overall, I found his oral evidence before the court to be deeply troubling. I formed the judgment that the father has no proper sexual boundaries and even more troubling has no insight at all into the lifelong consequences for A of his decision-making and his actions. m. He simply could not be trusted to safeguard A if A were in his care. n. F is currently under police investigation for sexual offences including sexual offences with a child or young person under the age of 18 which has resulted in the bail conditions to which he is subjected. He is not allowed under those bail conditions to be with a child under the age of 18 save for A under supervised contact. Legal Principles In dealing with welfare, I have regard to the decision of the Court of Appeal in Re D-S [2023] EWCA Civ 948 and the lead judgment of Peter Jackson LJ beginning at paragraph 21. The law on long-term foster care versus adoption: 1) "Wherever possible, consistent with their welfare needs, children deserve an upbringing within their natural families (Re KD [1988] AC 806; Re W [1993] 2 FLR 625). Care plans for adoption are 'very extreme' only made when 'necessary' for the protection of the children's interests, which means 'when nothing else will do', 'when all else fails.' Adoption 'should only be contemplated as a last resort' (Re B [2013] UKSC 33 ; Re P [2013] EWCA Civ 963 ; Re G (a child) [2013] EWCA Civ 965 )/ 2) The local authority relies on the judgment of Pauffley J in Re LRP [2013] EWHC 3974 (Fam) when she said the following in respect of a guardian's recommendation for long-term foster care in respect of a 10-week-old baby: 39. Ms Gorbutt's report suggests that long-term foster care would be a 'means by which permanency can be achieved' and that 'a long-term foster home can offer commitment, security and stability within a new family.' I profoundly disagree with those contentions. Long-term foster care is an extraordinarily precarious legal framework for any child, particularly one as young as LRP. Foster placements, long or short term, do not provide legal security. They can and often do come to an end. Children in long-term care may find themselves moved from one home to another sometimes for seemingly inexplicable reasons. Long-term foster parents are not expected to be fully committed to a child in the same way as adoptive parents. Most importantly of all in the current context, a long-term foster child does not have the same and enduring sense of belonging within a family as does a child who has been adopted. There is no way in which a long-term foster child can count on the permanency, predictability and enduring quality of his placement as can a child who has been adopted. 43. The advantages of a placement order are many and obvious. Prospective adopters are required to submit themselves to a rigorous and very thorough assessment process over many months. Those who satisfy the selection criteria are ordinarily of the highest calibre. They may be confidently expected to provide extremely good parenting to any child who is matched with them in all areas of his/her development. They will protect LRP from harm of whatever kind. The overwhelming probability is that they will be able to provide her with the priceless gift of a happy, secure and stable childhood from which she will derive life-long advantages. 3) In F-S (A Child: Placement Order) [2021] EWCA Civ 1212 Peter Jackson LJ endorsed the weight placed on a child's sense of belonging by Pauffley J in Re LRP: 'That sense of belonging is not transactional but arises from the mutual commitment between adoptive parents and children in those cases where adoption is appropriate. Here the judge was absolutely entitled to regard it as a factor of critical importance.' 4) The judgment goes on to say the following in respect of the argument in respect of the importance of ongoing sibling and parental contact: 'It is also significant that an open adoption is hoped for. Nowadays it is well recognised that the traditional model of closed adoption without contact is not the only arrangement that meets the needs of certain adopted children. If the argument made against this placement order were sound, it is difficult to envisage a case in which open adoption could occur without parental consent.' 5) The Court of Appeal has given further guidance about the different considerations that apply to long-term fostering and adoption in V (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 913 . In this case, the appeal was allowed and final care and placement orders substituted for children age 9 and 15. The guidance at paragraph 96 is as follows: i) Adoption makes the child a permanent part of the adoptive family to which he or she fully belongs. To the child, it is likely, therefore, to 'feel' different from fostering. Adoptions do, of course, fail but the commitment of the adoptive family is of a different nature to that of a local authority foster carer whose circumstances may change, however devoted he or she is, and who is free to determine the caring arrangement. ii) Whereas the parents may apply for the discharge of a care order with a view to getting the child back to live with them, once an adoption order is made, it is made for all time. iii) Contact in the adoption context is also a different matter from contact in the context of a fostering arrangement. Where a child is in the care of a local authority, the starting point is that the authority is obliged to allow the child reasonable contact with his parents (section 34(1) Children Act 1989). The contact position can, of course, be regulated by alternative orders under section 34 but the situation still contrasts markedly with that of an adoptive child. There are open adoptions, where the child sees his or her natural parents, but I think it would be fair to say that such arrangements tend not to be seen where the adoptive parents are not in full agreement. Once the adoption order has been made, the natural parents normally need leave before they can apply for contact. iv) Routine life is different for the adopted child in that once he or she is adopted, the local authority has no further role in his or her life (no local authority medicals, no local authority reviews, no need to consult the social worker over school trips abroad, for example). v) Re T (Placement Order) [2008] EWCA Civ 248 held that uncertainty about the prospects of finding an adoptive placement does not in itself rule out the making of a placement order." Application to this Case In terms of my assessment, I do so through the prism of section 1 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 as the court is being asked to address an adoption question primarily. It follows that the court should begin with the superior test set out in section 1 of the Adoption and Children Act in accordance with the guidance of McFarlane LJ, as he then was, in Re R . For it will follow that if the court is satisfied that there should be a placement order, then there should also be a care order. The paramount consideration of the court must be the child's welfare throughout his life. I remind myself that the European Court of Human Rights has held that in identifying where a child's best interests lie two considerations must be borne in mind: first, it is in the child's best interests that his ties with his family be maintained except in cases where the family has proved particularly unfit; second, it is in the child's best interests to ensure his development in a safe and secure environment ( Y. C. v United Kingdom [2012] 2 FLR 332 ). The court must at all times bear in mind that in general any delay in coming to the decision is likely to prejudice the child's welfare. The court must have regard to the following matters amongst others: a) The child's ascertainable wishes and feelings regarding the decision considered in the light of the child's age and understanding I have no doubt at all that A loves his father very much even if he believes him to be his grandfather. Equally, I have no doubt that A dearly loves his mother and misses her very much. He described his mother as kind and lovely to the children's guardian. I am satisfied that A would like to live with one or both of his parents, but that is not an informed view and he is still too young to have any proper understanding of his life journey. The fact that he was conceived by the mother and her own father carries life-long emotional consequences for him. It will be incredibly difficult for him to process these facts as he grows older and I agree with the submission that there is a clear risk that the stigma of being a child of an incestuous relationship will also be life-long. It is likely the emotional consequences will impact on his presentation and his behaviour as he grows older and through his teenage years. The identity of his parents will have a profound effect upon him for the rest of his life. (b) The child's particular needs As a result of that, his needs cannot be overstated. It is abundantly clear that life story and other therapeutic work will need to be informed by a particular expertise in dealing with the issues that flow from such a life journey. It is also critically important that those who have the day-to-day care of A have clearly defined appropriate sexual boundaries as well as insight into the emotional sequalae that flow for children born of an incestuous relationship. Without that solid basis, A is at risk of significant emotional and sexual harm. (c) The likely effect on the child throughout his life of having ceased to be a member of the original family and become an adopted person On adoption, the cessation of membership of the original family is total and intended to be so for all time. The original parents' parental responsibility is extinguished and there is a complete severing of all legal ties with the family. A cut off from his family of origin may have a potentially damaging impact on the child's sense of identity and emotional wellbeing. Becoming an adopted person provides for the child a permanent substituted family where the adopters are legally responsible and therefore fully committed to fulfilling their parental responsibilities. In focusing upon the likely effect on the child of these changes, I focus upon the degree of interference with the child's Article 8 rights to family life that would be consequent upon adoption. I balance that against the family life that the child would enjoy with an adoptive family. (d) The Child's age, sex, background and any of the child's characteristics which the court considers relevant. A is 5 years of age. He is male. He was born as a result of an incestuous relationship between his mother and his maternal grandfather. He is shortly to undergo genetic testing as a result. (e) Any harm within the meaning of the Children Act 1989 which the child has suffered or is at risk of suffering I have dealt with harm in my findings set out earlier in this judgment. I am satisfied that if the child were to be returned to his father's care now or in the foreseeable future he would be at risk of significant emotional and sexual harm. The nature and magnitude of that risk is so great that I cannot contemplate that such a move back to his father's care would be consistent with his welfare. In my judgment, it would be inimical to his welfare. I recognise the positives in the father's case set out in the local authority's evidence and confirmed in the oral evidence of the social worker and the children's guardian. However, the risks significantly outweigh those positives. (f) The relationship which the child has with relatives and with any other person in relation to whom the court considers the relationship to be relevant including (i) the likelihood of any such relationship continuing and the value to the child of its doing so (ii) the ability and willingness of any of the child's relatives or of any such person to provide the child with a secure environment in which the child can develop and otherwise to meet the child's needs (iii) the wishes and feelings of any of the child's relatives or of any such person regarding the child. I am satisfied that A loves his mother and his father and grandfather, not yet knowing him, of course, to be his father. His father and mother love him dearly. The father wants to care for A. He cannot provide him with good enough safe enough care, however, in my judgment. The mother supports adoption and the father opposes it. In her final analysis from paragraphs 29 to paragraphs 34, the children's guardian said this "A is developed mentally and able to understand the complexities of his parentage. A has expressed a wish to live with his parents. He loves spending time with his father and looks forward to family time sessions. If A's family time with his father was stopped at this stage, it would in my opinion likely cause significant distress and feelings of abandonment which would further compound his existing confusion about his situation impacting upon his emotional stability and security." I accept this analysis. 30 "The local authority final care plan for A is to secure his long-term future by way of adoption. In their final social work evidence template, they state that A could only be given this chance for a family life via adoption. The local authority considers long-term foster care a realistic alternative should adoption not be achievable or not in A's best interests. This would preserve A's relationship with his father and reduce the emotional harm associated with severing these ties. The local authority recommends direct contact with his father if adoption was secured and supervised contact during school holidays equivalent to six times per year in the event of long-term foster care." I accept that analysis. 31. "The local authority has filed a family finding report which is dated 18 November 2025. The report demonstrates a limited pool of adopters able to meet A's needs. The evidence indicates A is likely to face prolonged delay waiting for adoption which, in my opinion, is not in his welfare interests." This is now negated by the plan to limit the search to six to nine months. 32. "A plan of adoption could offer A long-term legal security and permanence providing him with life-long membership of a family and removing the uncertainty associated with long-term local authority involvement. However, in A's circumstances these benefits must be weighed against the vulnerabilities. It would sever A's ties with his parents. He has a close and emotionally significant bond with his father. This relationship not only provides A with emotional security but also supports his family identity and cultural heritage." I accept that analysis save that direct contact face-to-face contact with the father is proposed with the adoptive placement. 33. "While long-term foster care does not offer the same legal permanence as adoption, in my professional opinion it provides a more realistic and achievable permanence option for A. A would have the benefit of ongoing multidisciplinary support to ensure that the emotional impact of understanding his origins is professionally supported. It also provides for a flexible and child-led management of contact with parents. The continued oversight of the Independent Reviewing Officer provides an additional safeguarding layer ensuring A's care plan is reviewed regularly and adjusted as his needs evolve. I would anticipate that this level of support would reduce the risk of placement disruption and support his long-term wellbeing." Whilst successful matching for adoption is far from certain, I am satisfied an attempt to achieve it should be made. 34. "Adoption would place A in a position where he may be waiting in limbo for an adoptive placement that is unlikely to meet his cultural needs given the very limited pool of prospective adopters identified in the family finding report. This uncertainty would expose A to further delay, emotional instability and ongoing confusion. Remaining without a clear or achievable plan is not in his welfare interests, particularly given that he is 5 years old and requires a secure, stable and settled placement without delay. There is also a significant risk that as A grows older and begins to develop an understanding of his origins, specifically the incestuous relationship between his parents, this will have a significant impact on his emotional stability and identity development. A would not have the same level of multidisciplinary oversight and statutory support that he would receive in long-term foster care at a stage where placement stability could be impacted." Now that the local authority care plan is to have a twin search for adoptive and long-term foster care placements and to put a time limit on any search for an adoptive placement to six to nine months, the children's guardian's view is that on balance the court should make a placement order so that A has a chance of a forever family through an adoptive placement where the adopters would have legal and lifetime commitment to A. Adoption would give him that sense of belonging as a result of a concurrent search for adoptive and long-term foster care placement over a six month period. That would avoid any period of A being in a harmful period of limbo. The local authority is, I am satisfied, also committed to identifying appropriate life story and therapeutic work for A and also, importantly, to ensure that adopters have access to those services in the future when they are required. The potential placements are as follows: 1) Placement with the father either now or in the foreseeable future; 2) Placement order with search for an adoptive placement limited to six to nine months; 3) Placement in long-term foster care. I have to consider those alternatives holistically not in a linear fashion. I have to weigh up the pros and cons of each and decide which is the best outcome for A. The clear benefits of being placed with his father are that he loves his father even though he is father and grandfather. They have a close loving relationship. His father/grandfather loves him. The father is clearly able to provide good enough basic care for A. That would also provide continuity of care in that A has lived with his father until these proceedings. It would also mitigate the impact of the loss of his mother from his life. It would reduce the risk of feelings of rejection or abandonment. The negatives are that, in my judgment, it would not be safe. The father has no real insight into the consequences that flow from his actions. I am not satisfied that he sets appropriate sexual boundaries even now. He shows no insight into the emotional consequence for A lifelong that flow from being born to an incestuous relationship. He pays lip service to any suggestion that he is to blame for abusing his vulnerable daughter. He denies abuse altogether. He appeared almost bereft of contrition. That was in stark contrast to the visceral presentation of his daughter at the first case management hearing. A young woman who, in my judgment, is deeply damaged. So desperate was she to get away from the father that she has left her son behind and is emotionally unable to contemplate contact with her own child. I can only hope that she will be able to source the therapy and counselling that she so clearly needs and that one day she is able to reconnect with A in some way. It will obviously not be easy for her. An adoptive placement would provide for A that forever home where his carers take on legal obligations and responsibilities for him that are lifelong. That is likely to give him the best chance of experiencing normal family life and a solid nurturing basis from which he is able to undergo the critical life story and other therapeutic intervention that he will need as his discovery and understanding of his life journey develops. The negatives are that legal ties with his family will be broken. It may well be that his relationship with his mother is at an end through no fault of his own but the proposal is for there to be an ongoing limited relationship with his father with direct contact twice a year and some indirect contact. That will undoubtedly help him with his sense of identity and belonging to his birth family and mitigate any sense of rejection or abandonment or that it was in some way his fault. There is also a significant risk that as A grow older and begins to develop an understanding of his origins, specifically the incestuous relationship between his parents, that this will have a significant impact on his emotional stability and identity development. Unless the local authority ensures that all requisite resources are available to potential adopters, A would not have the same level of multidisciplinary oversight and statutory support that he would receive in long-term foster care at a stage where placement stability could be impacted. I am satisfied that they will do so. In my judgment and on balance there is less chance of placement breakdown than if he were placed in long-term foster care. The advantages of long-term foster care are that A would have the benefit of an ongoing multidisciplinary support to ensure that the emotional impact of understanding his origins is professionally supported. It would also provide for a flexible and child-led management of contact with parents and he would be able to see his father more frequently than if he were in an adoptive placement. That relationship is clearly important to A and appropriately structured and supervised contact would help to maintain that connection whilst ensuring his emotional and physical safety. The local authority should encourage A's mother, in so far as they are able, to maintain some form of contact even if it is only indirect. The legal ties with the birth family would not be broken in long-term foster care. The continued oversight of the Independent Reviewing Officer would provide an additional safeguarding layer ensuring that A's care plan is reviewed regularly and adjusted as his needs evolve. However, the carers would be professional carers with no lifetime commitment to A. The placement is likely to feel very different to an adoptive placement. The risk of placement breakdown is greater in my judgment. There would also be ongoing significant state intrusion into A's life. The father may also seek to apply to discharge the care order which could be destabilising for A. In my judgment overall stepping back from the various alternatives that are open to me and considering the matter holistically, having applied the balance of pros and cons with each of the options, placement for adoption provides A the best chance of a stable, secure, nurturing care that he so desperately needs while still maintaining some relationship with his father. I am satisfied that the placement order is necessary and proportionate and consistent with his welfare. In those circumstances, I dispense with the father's consent on the grounds that A's welfare requires that I do so. Being satisfied that a placement order is necessary and proportionate, it follows that there should also be a care order and I approve the permanence provisions of the care plan. That concludes this judgment. - - - - - - - - - - BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII