Judge rules placing three children with two men not ‘realistic option’

Two men in their mid-20s have failed to persuade a High Court judge to let them bring up three children who have been taken from the care of their mother.

Mr Justice Keehan concluded that letting the youngsters – who are aged between five and 18 months – live with the couple was not a “realistic option”.

The judge decided that the men would not be able to care for the children “sufficiently well to promote and enhance their welfare and development”.

He has ruled that the children should instead be placed for adoption.

Details of the case emerged on Friday in a written ruling by the judge following a private hearing in the Family Division of the High Court in London.

The judge said no-one involved could be identified.

One of the men was the children’s mother’s brother, the judge said.

The mother had said she could not care for the youngsters and wanted them to be brought up by her brother and his partner.

Social services bosses at Birmingham City Council had asked Mr Justice Keehan to make rulings about the children’s futures.

They wanted the children to be placed for adoption – and to stay together.

The children’s father had taken “no part” in the proceedings, said the judge.

Mr Justice Keehan said the men were in a “supportive and strong relationship” and had “positive qualities”.

He said he wished that he could have come to a different conclusion.

But he said adoption was the “only option” which would meet and promote the best interests of each child.

He said social workers had intervened after becoming concerned that the children were being neglected and suffering emotional abuse in the care of their mother.

The judge said the children’s mother could be “irrational, unpredictable and impulsive” and he worried that she would interfere if the youngsters were living with the men.

“A placement with (the men) would have the very considerable advantage of keeping the children in the family,” said Mr Justice Keehan.

“The disadvantage is that they would not be able to care for the three of them sufficiently well to promote and enhance their welfare and development.”

The judge added: “They would not be able to prevent the mother from interfering and destabilising the placement of the children.”

He went on: “I know my ultimate conclusion, that the only option in the best interests of each of the children is adoption, will cause (the two men) some very great distress, anguish and disappointment.

“I know they will feel the loss of direct contact and a relationship with the children very keenly.

“I wish I could have come to a different conclusion. I sincerely regret I could not do so.

“I am, however, in no doubt that the decision I have reached is the only outcome which would satisfactorily protect and promote the welfare and best interests of the children throughout their respective lives.

“(The two men) both have very positive qualities.

“I would not wish this judgment to be used to prevent either (from caring) for other children in the future.

“They have a mutually supportive and strong relationship.

“Many of the factors which have militated against them caring for the children are beyond their control, most principally the irrational, unpredictable and impulsive behaviour of the mother.”

Copyright (c) Press Association Ltd. 2016, All Rights Reserved.