JUDGMENT
(Approved)----------------------Digital Transcription by Epiq Europe Ltd,Unit 1 Blenheim Court, Beaufort Business Park, Bristol, BS32 4NEWeb: www.epiqglobal.com/en-gb/ Email: [email protected] (Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)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.This judgment was delivered in private. The judge has given leave for this version of the judgment to be published on condition that in any report of, or commentary on, the judgment the children shall not be named or photographs of them displayed. This prohibition applies notwithstanding that their father and their late mother are named in the judgment. It mirrors the convention used at the sentencing hearing referred to in the judgment. All persons, including representatives of the media, must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so will be a contempt of court pursuant to sec 12 Administration of Justice Act 1960.1.MR JUSTICE MOSTYN: I am concerned with two children: T, a boy, born on 27 March 2007, aged 15; and M, a girl, born on 22 June 2008, aged 13. 2.The children are represented by their children’s guardian, Katie Abley. She has instructed Ms Bewley of counsel. The children’s father, Matthew Farmer, is represented by Ms Gilbourne of counsel. The local authority is represented by Ms Duxbury of counsel. I am grateful to all counsel for their helpful and well-considered submissions. 3.There are three issues before me: i.First, whether at this hearing final orders can be made in respect of the children on the local authority’s application for care orders made on 16 August 2021; ii.Second, whether I should grant the application made on 15 February 2022 by the children’s guardian for a change of the children’s surname from “Farmer”, (being the father’s surname) to “Clay” (being the mother’s surname); and iii.Third, whether I should grant the application made, again, on 15 February 2022 by the children’s guardian for the termination of the father’s parental responsibility. There is no dispute concerning the first application. It is not disputed that the children should be raised by their maternal grandmother, Carol York, under the auspices of a care order. I am satisfied that the statutory threshold is amply surmounted and that it is in the interests of the children to make care orders in respect of them. 4.The second and third applications are strongly supported by the local authority and are equally strongly opposed by the father. 5.