By . Tara Brady . A couple separated a little boy from his six brothers and sisters because they felt that he 'did not fit into the family', a High Court judge has heard. They decided to live as a 'divided family' with the mother and six children occupying one room and the father and little boy occupying another, Mrs Justice Russell was told. The little boy, now five, was 'largely confined' to a room with a gate placed across the doorway. Judge said the local authority with responsibility for the children was Lancashire County Council (pictured) He shared his father’s meals. Mrs Justice Russell said the little boy must have suffered 'significant emotional harm'. She said the depth of that harm might not become apparent until he was older. Detail of the little boy’s treatment has emerged in a written ruling by the judge following a hearing in a family court in Manchester. She wrote: 'He was seen as the problem and he and the other children must have known it; indeed the older children have said so. Mrs Justice Russell did not identify the couple but said they had lived in the Lancashire towns of Burnley and Blackpool (pictured) 'The emotional harm that this has caused his siblings is significant. The oldest three have expressed guilt and remorse at the way he was treated; they should not have been put in that position.' The judge ruled that all seven children - aged between 13 and three - should be taken into care. In her judgement she wrote: 'The plan of the local authority is not to place the children with permanent adoptive families; this is entirely appropriate given their ages and their close relationships as a sibling group and the need for them to continue to have regular contact with each other. 'The local authority must ensure that they are put in long-term placements where they can develop long-term and secure relationships so as to minimise the disadvantages that are inherent in the care system. 'The children must have regular, frequent and good quality contact which means that proper arrangements must be put in place.' She said all had probably suffered 'significant and long-lasting harm' as a result of their parents’ care. Mrs Justice Russell did not identify the couple but said they had lived in the Lancashire towns of Burnley and Blackpool. And the judge said the local authority with responsibility for the children was Lancashire County Council.
Lived as a 'divided family' with mother and six children in one room .
The father and little boy who is now aged five occupied another room .
Boy was 'largely confined' to a room with a gate placed across doorway .
Judge said the little boy must have suffered 'significant emotional harm'
By . Tara Brady . A couple separated a little boy from his six brothers and sisters because they felt that he 'did not fit into the family', a High Court judge has heard. They decided to live as a 'divided family' with the mother and six children occupying one room and the father and little boy occupying another, Mrs Justice Russell was told. The little boy, now five, was 'largely confined' to a room with a gate placed across the doorway. Judge said the local authority with responsibility for the children was Lancashire County Council (pictured) He shared his father’s meals. Mrs Justice Russell said the little boy must have suffered 'significant emotional harm'. She said the depth of that harm might not become apparent until he was older. Detail of the little boy’s treatment has emerged in a written ruling by the judge following a hearing in a family court in Manchester. She wrote: 'He was seen as the problem and he and the other children must have known it; indeed the older children have said so. Mrs Justice Russell did not identify the couple but said they had lived in the Lancashire towns of Burnley and Blackpool (pictured) 'The emotional harm that this has caused his siblings is significant. The oldest three have expressed guilt and remorse at the way he was treated; they should not have been put in that position.' The judge ruled that all seven children - aged between 13 and three - should be taken into care. In her judgement she wrote: 'The plan of the local authority is not to place the children with permanent adoptive families; this is entirely appropriate given their ages and their close relationships as a sibling group and the need for them to continue to have regular contact with each other. 'The local authority must ensure that they are put in long-term placements where they can develop long-term and secure relationships so as to minimise the disadvantages that are inherent in the care system. 'The children must have regular, frequent and good quality contact which means that proper arrangements must be put in place.' She said all had probably suffered 'significant and long-lasting harm' as a result of their parents’ care. Mrs Justice Russell did not identify the couple but said they had lived in the Lancashire towns of Burnley and Blackpool. And the judge said the local authority with responsibility for the children was Lancashire County Council.
as a 'divided family' with the mother and six children occupying one room and the father and was told. The little boy, now five, was 'largely confined' to a room with a gate placed across the doorway. Judge said the local authority with must have suffered 'significant emotional harm'.