Bid by father to revoke placement orders after 11-month period of alcohol abstinence fails

A High Court Judge has rejected an application by a father who sought to revoke placement orders made in respect of his two children, on the basis of his 11-month period of abstinence from alcohol.

Mr Justice Poole concluded that although the father’s abstinence demonstrated a “keen motivation” to turn his life around and to be reunited with his children, he had not taken other steps as advised by professionals to secure the continuation of his abstinence, and it would therefore be “contrary to the best interests of the children” to revoke the orders.

Outlining the background to the case, the judge noted that the children (C and D) had been removed from the care of AB, the father, after police found the children living in poor conditions, and after he had left them with neighbours known to children's services for an “extended period” whilst he drank.

Mr Justice Poole said: “The Local Authority has been attempting to find prospective adopters who are a cultural match and who are prepared to adopt C and D together. Those requirements resulted in some delay identifying suitable prospective adopters but in April this year prospective adopters who are an ideal cultural match were identified.

“They have been approved and have been waiting to adopt since August 2024.”

The father’s case was that the care and placement orders were made because he was abusing alcohol and since he is no longer abusing alcohol and has proved his long term abstinence, the orders should be revoked such that the children should be returned to his care.

The local authority opposed AB's application.

Outlining oral evidence from Ms Z, the allocated social worker, the judge said: “Ms Z was firm in her view that the placement order should not be revoked. Firstly, she believed that it was too great a risk for the children's safety and wellbeing to be returned to their father's care. His abstinence was recent when set alongside his long-standing alcohol abuse. He did not have the support by way of therapy or a network of friends or family.

“Ms Z noted that the children have been withdrawn and uncommunicative during family time with AB compared with their usual, more lively and inquisitive selves as seen at school and in other settings. This may be due to the language barrier between them and AB. They no longer speak his native language and he has virtually no English. So long as the language barrier lasts, AB would not be able to understand the children's concerns and would have difficulties communicating with healthcare or educational professionals on their behalf.”

Analysing the case, the judge observed that it had taken time to identify suitable potential adopters and they had now been waiting for the outcome of this application for some months.

He said: “They are described as an ideal cultural match for the children and being "gold standard" adopters. There is a real risk that further delay will lead to the loss of those potential adopters which will risk the children suffering attachment issues and emotional harm. These children are approaching the ages of five and four respectively. They need a permanent family and they have waited long enough for that.”

Rejecting the father’s application, Mr Justice Poole concluded: “Balancing all the relevant factors and considering the welfare of the children within the context of s1 of the ACA 2002, I am satisfied that the placement orders should remain and I dismiss AB's application to revoke them. It would be contrary to the best interests of the children to revoke the placement orders. It is in their best interests that the orders should remain in force. This outcome will lead to the severing of family ties for the children which must be a last resort. I am satisfied that the continuation of the placement orders is a proportionate interference with the Article 8 rights of the children and AB.”

He continued: “In my judgment the risk of harm to the children on the current placement orders being revoked and the children being returned to AB's care, even if undertaken with the greatest care and support, are too great for me to take that course of action. AB is unrealistic. His abstinence is to his very great credit and demonstrates a keen motivation to turn his life around and to be reunited with his children. But he has not taken other steps as advised by professionals to secure the continuation of his abstinence. He has not undergone gastroscopy to check for the need treatment for varices even though such treatment could save his life.

“He has not engaged with relapse prevention work nor has he re-engaged with AA [Alcoholics Anonymous]. He has not built a support network. He is not in accommodation that is suitable for the children. He has not learned sufficient English to enable him to communicate with his children. The Court has assurances from AB that he will take steps to remedy these problems but the evidence is that he has failed to do so thus far.”

Lottie Winson