England and Wales Magistrates' Court (Family)

X Local Authority

Applicant

and

Mrs G

1^st Respondent

Mr G

2^nd Respondent

F and N (two children through the Children’s Guardian)

3^rd Respondent

Ms W

for the

  Applicant

Ms H of counsel

for the

 1st Respondent

No Legal Representative

2^nd Respondent

Ms B

for the

3^rd Respondent

1.

We are considering an application X Council for interim care orders in respect of two children F, who is nearly 12 years of age and N who is almost 5 years of age.

2.

The Local Authority is represented by Ms W who is accompanied by the Social Worker Ms C and the Team Manager Ms J.

3.

The children’s parents are Mrs G and Mr G who are married and share parental responsibility for their children.  Mrs G has attended court and she is represented by Ms H of counsel.  Mrs G has been assisted by an interpreter throughout these proceedings.

4.

Mr G has attended court and he represents himself in these proceedings and does not require the assistance of an interpreter. 

5.

The Duty Children’s Guardian is Miss MD and Miss B represents the children.

6.

If the application is granted the Local Authority’s interim plan is for the children to remain placed with their current foster parents.  The Authority intends to complete their core assessment which initially was to have been completed by the 6^th August 2010 but will now be completed by the 13^th August 2010.  The interim plan of the Local Authority is for the parents to have contact with their children three times per week for a period of one hour but this contact is to be supervised.   However in evidence both the Social Worker and her Team Manager conceded that they would look to extend the time for contact and also look to set up some appropriate activity based contact.   The Social Worker indicated that contact will be continually reviewed to ensure it meets the children’s needs.  The Social Worker also told us that telephone contact between the children and their parents had taken place when the children were voluntarily accommodated by the Authority but when the Emergency Protection Orders were made on the 9.7.10 and the Authority shared parental responsibility for the children this telephone contact was stopped.

7.

The parents’ cases are essentially the same.  They both oppose the application, they ask this court to consider carefully whether the threshold criteria for the making of an interim order are met and they seek the immediate return of their children to their care.  They believe that the Local Authority have over reacted to the injuries seen on F.  It is the parents’ position that they can not give any further information as to how the injuries were caused.  They saw the bruises on F but they were not concerned about them because F was not concerned about them.  Both parents deny causing the injuries to F.  If the court finds that the threshold criteria for the making of an interim order are met then the parents submit that the court should look at the least interventionist approach that is proportionate to the identified risk.  The parents submit that the children are suffering more harm in foster care and should be allowed to return home to their parents’ care where they will be safe.  The parents submit that if the court has concerns then these can be addressed by the making of an interim supervision order together with a written working agreement or contract of expectation. The parents case is that they have no difficulty working with Social Services and if the children were returned home to their care then the Social Worker could visit whenever she wanted to in order to check on the children.  If the court makes interim care orders at the conclusion of the hearing then the parents ask the court to make a defined contact order to ensure that they have considerably more contact than the Local Authority proposes.  They would like the court to give an indication to the Local Authority in the terms of a defined contact order that contact should take place at a level of not less than 2 hours for each session and whenever possible for a longer period and to include activity based contact sessions.

8.

The Duty Children’s Guardian and Children’s solicitor support the Local Authority’s application for interim care orders at this early stage in the proceedings.  However they agree with the submissions made by the parents that the proposed level of contact is insufficient to meet the children’s needs.  The Guardian believes that especially as the school holidays are nearly here consideration should be given to either more frequent contact arrangements or longer sessions of contact with consideration being given to some of the contact sessions being activity based although she was clear that all contact should remain supervised.

9.

We have read all the documents filed in this case.  We have heard evidence from Dr B, a Consultant Community Paediatrician, Miss C, Social Worker, Ms J, Team Manager, Mr and Mrs G, Mr J and the Duty Children’s Guardian Ms MD.  We have also heard submissions from all the parties.

10.

During the proceedings a request was made by counsel for Mrs G and supported by Mr G in person that they should be allowed to call the child F as a witness on their behalf.  This application was opposed by the Local Authority and the Children’s Guardian.  It was submitted to us that in order to reach a decision on the best possible evidence the court needed to hear from F.  We were referred to the guidance on this matter contained in the analysis of Re W (Care Order: Sexual Abuse) 2009 in the Family Court Practice Red Book.  Counsel accepted that this would be an unusual course to take particularly at an interim hearing but the parents believe that this is the only way the court will get to the bottom of this case.  The parents do not want their children remaining in foster care for any longer than necessary. Mr G submits that it is contrary to the UN Convention on children’s rights if F is prevented from appearing in court.  The parents believe that F wants to give his story to the court and have his views heard.

11.

The Local Authority opposes this application; they submit that to bring this child to court to give evidence is too much responsibility to put on the shoulders of a child.  The child has already given an explanation for the cause of the bruising, which he has not changed and he has not provided any further details whatsoever.  His explanation is not accepted by Dr B.  The court should deal with the application on the evidence already before it.  The Local Authority submits that the court should be slow to grant this application given the distress and harm this could cause to F.

12.

The Children’s Guardian opposes this application.  The Guardian is concerned that there has not yet been any direct in-depth work done with the child in terms of his explanation for the injuries.  It is submitted on behalf of the child that the case law all appears to relate to hearings where a court is determining what findings it can make, and this is the first interim hearing where the court should not make specific findings.  It is the Guardian’s belief that if F were to be asked to give evidence this could be seen as a “fishing exercise”.  It is the Guardian’s submissions that it is wholly premature to bring a child of F’s age to court and that this course of action could cause F harm.

13.

We agree with the applicants that there is not a presumption that a child will not give evidence in family proceedings but this issue is a balancing exercise.  We have had to weigh the advantages that having F give evidence will bring against the damage it might do to the welfare of him and his sister.  We remind ourselves that this is the first hearing of an application for interim orders where we are not making any specific findings.  We acknowledge that F is almost 12 years old and his parents tell us that he wants to give evidence to the court.  We balance this against the view of the applicants and the Guardian that at this stage in the proceedings it is unnecessary and likely to be traumatic and harmful to him.  The parents’ case does not challenge the child’s account of how the injuries were caused and the Local Authority and Children’s Guardian accept that he has given an explanation for his injuries which he has not changed.  We are satisfied that bringing the child to court and asking him to give evidence is likely to put him in a traumatic situation which would be seriously detrimental to his welfare.  We agree with the submissions of the Local Authority and Children’s Guardian in this regard and having considered the analysis of the leading authorities we refuse the application for F to be called as a witness by the parents.

14.

The history of this case is not disputed.  On the 18 ^th June 2010 bruising was found on F’s arm when he was at school.  The school referred the matter to Social Care and when the Social Worker spoke to F on his own at school he said that he did not know how the bruises had been caused.  F was examined later that day by Dr B, Consultant Paediatrician who concluded that the bruises were significant non-accidental injuries and it was possible that these were due to being gripped.  Dr B found that the injuries were not consistent with the explanations given by F or his parents.  When asked by Dr B how he got the bruises F said that he could not say for certain when he had got injured but possibly 3 days ago when he tried to jump off a swing and the swing hit him on his left arm.

15.

After the medical examination the parents agreed to the children being voluntarily accommodated until further assessments of the family were completed.  On the 21^st June the parents were informed that the Social Worker would be undertaking a core assessment of the family which would consider risks and whether the children could return home but that until the assessment was completed Social Care requested that the children remain in the care of the Local Authority.  The parents were told that if they did not agree to the children being voluntarily accommodated then the Local Authority would commence legal proceedings.  The parents continued to agree to the children being voluntarily accommodated.  A home visit took place on the 24^th June where the core assessment was further discussed and the Social Worker told the parents that she would telephone them with the assessment dates.  The Local Authority accepts that no further contact regarding the core assessment had been made with the parents by the 5^th July 2010.   It was conceded in evidence by the Team Manager that the parents had at least left one letter at social services offices because a copy was provided to the court showing the date it was received by them with a request to pass this letter on to the social worker.

16.

On the 7^th July 2010 the parents’ withdrew their consent to the continuing voluntary accommodation of their children and took the children home.  The Local Authority submits that this is an indication of an unwillingness to continue to co-operate on the part of the parents.  It is the parents’ case that their actions were as a result of their frustrations at what they saw as a lack of action on behalf of the Local Authority and unwillingness by anyone at the Local Authority wanting to speak to them.  Social Care made an urgent home visit and the police removed the children from the family home under a police protection order.  The children were placed back with the same foster carer where they remain.  The Local Authority issued an application for an emergency protection order which was heard by this court on the 9^th July 2010.  At that hearing the parents had an opportunity to discuss the matter with a solicitor but chose to represent themselves and oppose the application.  At the conclusion of the contested hearing an emergency protection order was made for 7 days.  The Local Authority issued an application for an interim care order and this is the first hearing of that application.

17.

In our judgment it appears that the crucial issues for us to decide at this hearing are whether the threshold criteria for the making of an interim order are met, if we find that they are met, what is the most appropriate order which will be the least interventionist and most proportionate response to the identified risks.  Can the identified risks be managed and the children’s welfare safeguarded by making interim supervision orders or is the risk so great that only interim care orders and the separation of these children from their parents can adequately safeguard and protect them.   It is not the purpose of this hearing to make findings about how the injuries were caused and who if anyone caused them.

18.

The parents ask us to consider carefully whether the threshold criteria are met in this case.  We have to be satisfied that the threshold for making an interim order are met namely that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the children are suffering or are likely to suffer significant harm and that the harm or likelihood of harm is attributable to the care given to the children or likely to be given to them if the order were not made not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give him.

19.

We first heard evidence from Dr B, Consultant Paediatrician who examined F on the 18.6.10.  Her report is filed in the court bundle and can be found at pages C1-6.  Dr B confirmed that the contents of her report were true to the best of her knowledge and belief and that she had taken the photographs of the injuries that have been made available for us to consider during this hearing.  Dr B in her evidence confirmed that she was concerned because of the pattern and clustering of the bruising and that finding bruising on softer parts of the body area is very uncommon for non-accidental injuries.

20.

Dr B maintained her opinion that the bruises were caused by blunt trauma but that it is difficult to be entirely certain of the mechanism.  Dr B could not be certain as to whether the bruises were caused by a punch or a grip.  Dr B concede that in one of the clusters of bruises it was not the pattern of implement trauma and it was not typical of a hand print either but she believed that two or three of the smaller bruises could be due to forcible impact with fingertips.  Dr B said that the measurements would suggest this but that she could not be certain.  She would expect it to have been caused by a stronger person than F but she could not exclude an adult or a stronger child.

21.

Dr B confirmed that in her opinion a substantial amount of force would have been needed to cause the bruises and that the history provided by the child and the parents did not match what she saw.  In her opinion if the injury had been sustained by part of a swing hitting the arm then she would have expected a singular and linear injury rather than the cluster of bruises.   Even under cross-examination Dr B maintained her opinion that the bruises were caused by a non-accidental injury, in her opinion being hit by part of the swing did not explain any of the bruises she saw on F.

22.

When cross-examined on behalf of the first respondent Dr B accepted that other than the bruises there were no concerns about the child’s presentation and that having examined F and noted the bruises she decided that no further medical treatment was needed.  Dr B maintained her opinion that the bruises were sustained in two separate incidents although she accepted that it was difficult to age bruises.

23.

When cross-examined by the second respondent Dr B maintained her opinion that the injuries were out of all proportion to what she would expect to be sustained in normal play.  She confirmed that F had told her that the bruises on his upper arm happened when he jumped of a swing and it hit him but he could not give any explanation as to how he sustained the bruises on his lower arm. 

24.

Dr B was clear in her opinion in respect of the injuries she saw on F.  These injuries were caused by the use of a substantial amount of force and they would have caused significant discomfort to F, she believed that there were two separate incidents and she believed that the injuries were non-accidental injuries.  None of the explanations provided by F or his parents were consistent with the injuries seen.

25.

The parents accept that when F was examined the bruises that Dr B has told the court about could be seen on F’s arm.  F’s mother accepted that she probably first saw two bruises on F’s arm on the Sunday after the incident in the park with the swing.  This would be the 13.6.10.  F’s mother told us that she had spoken to F about it but because he was not concerned about it she wasn't.  She told us that she was upset about the bruises and that she had heard Dr B evidence and accepted it.  Mrs G went on to clarify that she knew that the doctor believed that the bruises were caused by a non-accidental injury and that someone could have caused the injuries to F deliberately but it was not her.   She still believed the bruises might have been caused accidentally because F sometimes does things he shouldn’t do and he often gets bruises.  When children of 11 or 12 are playing they can break arms or noses or get burns this does not mean that the parents have done this.

26.

We did find Dr B’s evidence compelling.  Dr B maintained her initial opinion under cross-examination. On the evidence we have summarized above and applying the relevant test we are satisfied that the threshold criteria for the making on an interim order are met.

27.

The Social Worker confirmed her full details and that the contents of the statement she had filed dated 16.7.10 were true to the best of her knowledge and belief.    She confirmed that she had only known the family since the 18.6.10 and that she had seen the children on one or two occasions per week since then.  She confirmed that she had seen F on his own when she first met him and after initially telling the teacher that he didn’t know how he had got the bruises he then said he got them from when the swing had hit him.  He has maintained this explanation ever since and can’t explain how he got the bruises to his lower arm.  The social worker told us that she was trying to build up a relationship with F.  She had seen him at school, had transported him to school, has seen him in his foster placement and also seen him at contact with his parents. 

28.

The social worker confirmed that she found F to be a confident child who if he had concerns he would tell her about them.  He had told her about a concern at the placement when he was told off for telling off his sister.  The Social Worker told us that F consistently says that he wants to go home.  When asked what he likes most about home he said his mother and father, he relaxes at home and likes watching television he loves his mother and his father.   The social worker conceded that there were a lot of positives from the parents care, there were no concerns in terms of the punctuality and attendance of the children at school and also their cleanliness and home circumstances.  The family was not known to the police or to Social Care before this incident.

29.

The social worker confirmed that Social Care relies upon the evidence of Dr B and the parents’ lack of engagement in the core assessment to submit that the only order that is appropriate for the court to make is an interim care order implementing their interim plan of the children remaining in foster care pending the conclusion of assessments.

30.

Under cross-examination she accepted that for these children newly arrived in this country one of whom is not 5 years old and has limited understanding of this language the removal into foster care and away from their parents must have been a traumatic experience.  There has been some emotional upset to the children witnessed by the school.  N is upset if a different escort comes to collect her and she is upset at the end of contact.  N relies on her brother for translation in the foster placement.

31.

The social worker’s position is that leaving the children at home is too greater risk given the evidence of Dr B.

32.

The Team Manager Ms J gave evidence confirming her details and that the contents of her statement were true to the best of her knowledge and belief.

33.

Her evidence was on the narrow issue of contact between the parents and Social Care.  She concedes under cross-examination that certainly the parents had appeared to make efforts to contact the Social Worker who was unavailable to see them.  She accepted that a letter was sent to parents telling them the next review date would be the 16^th July and she accepted that there appears to have been a breakdown in communication with the parents which has led to a breakdown in the relationship between Social Care and the parents.

34.

Her evidence explained her dealings with the parents’ requests to see the Social Worker or a manager on the 5^th, 6^th and 7^th July.  The Local Authority submits that because of the parents cancelling two of assessment appointments and withdrawing their consent to the continued voluntary accommodation of the children this demonstrates an unwillingness to co-operate with Social Care.

35.

We have considered her evidence, together with the concessions made about the breakdown in communication that has occurred, the language difficulties and we have looked at this together with the parents’ evidence about the efforts they have made to contact the social worker and talk to her or her manager.  The reasons the parents have given in evidence for withdrawing their consent to the voluntary accommodation namely their frustrations at the delay in the assessment process and the delay in anything happening or in anyone talking to them and explaining further the process.  The evidence that they knew that by withdrawing their consent the police would be called and the children would be removed again but this would lead to a court hearing within 2 days which would give them an opportunity to explain their position to someone other than the social worker.  The parents’ evidence, which is supported by the Children’s Guardian on this point persuades us that there is still a willingness on the part of the parents to co-operate with social services.

36.

We have also been provided with a number of written testimonials and references from the parents.  The parents also called a witness Mr J.  His evidence related to what he had seen when he shared accommodation with the family.  The references and school reports have provided us with information about the family and their life in their home country and in England.  Whilst they indicate that the family does have support networks this evidence has not assisted us with the disputed issues

37.

The mother gave her evidence well with the assistance of an interpreter.  She explained why the family had come to this country namely to provide a better standard of living for their family, and why she had come before the rest of the family.  She told us that she had obtained a Batchelor Degree in Education in her own country but was having to work in a factory in this country. She told us about the family life while they were staying in shared accommodation and the tensions that arose between their family and their landlady.  She told us about the incident in the park and what she had seen.  She also told us that she had probably first seen bruises on F on Sunday the 13^th June.  She explained to us that because F wasn’t concerned about these bruises she wasn’t.  She had discussed the incident in the park later that day with her husband.  He had been working at home.  To her it was an unremarkable day.

38.

The mother went into details about her attempts to contact the social worker and why she had agreed to the voluntary accommodation of the children and how initially she thought it was just over the weekend but then she understood from discussions it would be for a short period of time but then it seemed as if nothing was happening.  She explained that she had not attended the core assessment sessions because she had appointments with her solicitor to prepare for this court hearing.  There had been three lengthy appointments during the week of the 12^th of July.

39.

The mother under cross-examination accepted Dr B’s evidence and told us that when she saw the bruises on F she was upset yet she still thought the bruises could have been caused accidentally.

40.

The mother told us that she wants her children home, they will not be at risk, she is happy to allow social care to see them whenever they want and she will co-operate with any assessment.  The assessments can be done with the children at home because she is certain that is where they want to be.  She told us about how the children were in contact and how their reactions could not be role play they were genuinely pleased to be with their parents and did not show any signs of being fearful of them.  The evidence was in fact accepted and confirmed by the social worker who had observed contact.

41.

She told us that she hadn’t contacted the school about F’s bruises because she didn’t know that she had to.  F would have told me if he was having trouble so I was not concerned about the bruises because he wasn’t.  At nearly 12 F would want to sort out his problems but if he was unable to do so and the problems were continuing he would have come to us and we would have sorted them out.  F is an open child and if something is bothering him I can tell.  I wasn’t looking for bruising the two bruises I saw were as a result of the swing incident.

Under cross-examination she denied causing the bruising and was unable to give any other explanation because she had not seen anything else.

42.

The father’s evidence was similar to his wife’s.  He accepted that she had told him about the incident in the park.  He told us that he probably saw the bruises on F on the Sunday.  It was his wife that dealt with the medical examination.  His evidence confirmed hers in respect of the attempts made to contact Social Services and the frustrations experienced by them.  He told us that he had not given his consent to the voluntary accommodation but supported his wife’s decision 100%.  

43.

Under cross-examination he was adamant that he had not caused the injuries to F.

44.

He told us that he was concerned the children were being deprived from their right to a family life and also that their religious needs were not being met in foster care.  It was important to the children that they attend the nearest Orthodox Church.  His evidence in respect of this was supported by the Children’s Guardian who felt it important that the Local Authority made provision for their religious needs.

45.

He told us that the children were suffering in foster care, they should be with their parents unless there is hard evidence against them and that if they were returned to their parents care then social  care could visit as often as they want even if that is 24 hours a day 7 days per week.

46.

Under cross-examination he did accept that the parents worked different shifts and that there were times when the children were left in each parents sole care.

47.

He asked the court to allow the children home and he and the family would work with the social services under an interim supervision order because they have co-operated in the past.

48.

We heard from the Duty Children’s Guardian Ms MD who confirmed that she had prepared and initial analysis and recommendations report for the court dated the 19.7.10.  Ms MD confirmed that the contents of this report were true to the best of her knowledge and belief.  She confirmed that she had been the duty guardian at the court hearing for the emergency protection order.  She confirmed the enquiries that she had made in this case and told us about the conversations she had with both children’s teachers.  It had not been possible for her to see the children, because it was her opinion that an in-depth piece of work needed to be done with them rather than for her to see them for a short time where she felt they may feel isolated and this would cause them further distress.  She accepted that the children’s wishes and feelings had been consistent and relied upon the evidence of the Social Worker in this regard.

49.

Ms MD also confirmed that she had spoken to the foster carer who explained that the placement was not without difficulties but that on balance the foster carer though they were settling. 

50.

The Guardian’s clear evidence to us is that she supports the Local Authority’s application for an interim care order with the children remaining in foster care.  The Guardian is concerned about the level of contact and supports the parents’ position that this should be increased.  The Guardian welcomed the evidence of the Team Manager that they would look to promote contact at a level of not less than 2 hours 3 times per week but also to look at arranging some activity based contact which might be for longer periods particularly during the school.

51.

The Guardian told us that she had heard Dr B evidence and the evidence of the parents and their witness together with the evidence of the social worker and team manager.  The application is for an interim care order with the plan for children remaining in foster care.  Her view is that clearly F has unexplained injuries which can't be attributed to the explanations given  with the bruising described as significant and the doctor is clear about the level of force needed and clear it couldn’t be attributed to a swing and also that F would be in significant discomfort as a result of these bruises.  Her first place is to protect the children which she believes can only be done by removing them from their parents. Secondly she told us there is a need to identify the type of assessment and significant cultural issues together with difficulties with language and lack of understanding.  It was the Guardian’s view that the children should remain in foster care until the assessments have been completed.  The Guardian didn’t feel she could support an interim supervision order at this stage in light of the clear evidence of the doctor and the lack of information about whether the order and support package would safeguard the children.

52.

We now turn to the need for an order.  In reaching our decision we have had regard to the welfare checklist contained in the Children Act.  We remind ourselves that it is the children’s welfare that must be our paramount concern.  We have carefully considered the impact on these children of being uprooted from the family home and placed with people who do not speak their first language and in particular the impact this must have on N who does not yet speak any English and is barely five years of age.

53.

We also remind ourselves of the no order principle and the need to take the least interventionist approach possible.  We find ourselves satisfied that an order is necessary at this stage in the proceedings to safeguard the welfare of these children.  The key decision for us to make is would and interim supervision order be a proportionate response to the risk presented or is the risk so great that only an interim care order and separation of these children from their parents care will adequately safeguard and protect them.

54.

In submissions we have been referred to The Case of  L-A(Children) 2009 EWCA Civ 822.  The parties submitted an agreed position in this regard.  They relied upon the analysis at paragraph 7 which sets out the relevant criteria for an interim hearing and our considerations.

55.

We were also referred to the case of Re D which reminds us that if the court is to depart from the opinion of the Guardian then the court must give its reasons for so departing.

56.

We remind ourselves that the object of an interim order should normally be to hold the balance so as to cause the least possible harm to the children and that it is not a step involving any advance judgment of the final issue of the case.   An interim care order may be used as a temporary measure to safeguard the child’s welfare while sufficient information is gathered to inform future or final decisions.  We believe that the separation of a child from its parents should only be ordered if the child’s safety demands interim protection.

57.

We have been told that repeatedly both children are saying they want to return home to their parents.  F is nearly 12 and his wishes and feeling must be given greater weight than N’s because of his age and understanding.

58.

All the professionals concur that contact is positive with no anxiety and fear shown on the part of the children and with appropriate interaction and a close relationship exists between the children and their parents.

59.

The parents are educated people.  In their evidence to us we found that they were caring parents who have had a longstanding relationship for a period of 13 years.  The parents take great pride in their children’s school achievements, record of attendance and their development.

60.

Despite the parents language difficulties in our judgment they have shown a willingness to co-operate with the authorities from the start of this process and have made every attempt to understand the legal process they are involved in as well as their rights.  We are satisfied that they were frustrated in the delays that have occurred which brought them to the point of withdrawing consent and welcoming the courts intervention so that their case can be heard.  The Children’s Guardian agrees that their approach to withdrawing their consent is not indicative of a lack of co-operation.  We are of the belief that whatever order is granted the parents will continue to work with the Local Authority as they have told us in their evidence.

61.

We have found that the threshold criteria are met.  It is not the purpose of this hearing to determine how these injuries were caused.  What we do find is that F has suffered because we have accepted Dr B’s evidence. 

62.

We accept that there could be a number of possible explanations for these injuries based on the current evidence before us.  The parents can’t be excluded as perpetrators nor can bullying be excluded or the action of any other adult or larger child.

63.

Returning to the second proposition of L-A and the Guardian and Local Authority’s concerns that the safety of the children is of great importance hence interim plan for the children to remain in foster care.  We must be mindful that the Local Authority in seeking to justify the continued removal it must meet a very high standard and at an interim stage the removal of a child should not be sanctioned unless the child’s safety requires interim protection.

64.

In our opinion given the children’s recent move from their country to England this in itself has been an emotional time for the whole family.  Particularly in the case of the children to have been deprived of their parents’ emotional support and presence must have been a traumatic experience.  We accept the Guardian’s evidence that being placed in foster care in a placement where N does not speak the language must be having an emotional impact on the children.  We need to balance the emotional trauma to the children of maintaining this position with the risk of physical harm to them if they are returned home.  We believe that if they were returned home the identified risk is manageable by intervention of the social services.  We do not accept the submissions made on behalf of the Local Authority and the Children’s Guardian that the risks in this case are so great that only removal into foster care will protect the children.  We believe the emotional damage to the children of continued separation from their parents for a significant period of time persuades us that on balance we agree with the submissions made on behalf of the parents.

65.

We are satisfied on the evidence that the right orders that are proportionate to the evidence we have heard are interim supervision orders.

66.

Accordingly we make interim supervision orders to X Council in respect of both children.  We propose to make those orders to the next court hearing date.  We do agree with the representations on the allocation and transfer this case to the county court.

67.

Hear before Lay Magistrates on the 16^th July 2010, 19^th July 2010 and the 20^th July 2010.