The children returned to the extended family after the Leeds disturbance

Four children whose move into foster care caused turmoil in Leeds have now been returned to stay with their extended family.

The children were staying with other extended family members when they were taken into emergency care by police and social workers on Thursday amid fears they would be removed from the UK.

This sparked disorder, which led to a bus being set on fire and a police car being overturned in the suburb of Harehills.

During a Family Court hearing, Judge Helen Trotter-Jackson said it was important that everyone “focuses on the welfare of the children and bringing the temperature down in this case”.

The decision was welcomed by the children’s parents, with the mother telling the BBC: “I’m glad the children are back with their family.”

Judge Trotter-Jackson explained that the Family Court had given permission for the children to be removed because of fears they would be removed from the UK.

Leeds Children’s Services had received “from a third party” that family members were planning to take them to Romania.

The court heard that the children were all foreign nationals without settled status in the UK and it could be difficult for them to return to the UK.

All were already subject to Family Court orders, which would make it illegal to remove them from the UK without local authority or court permission.

Those orders were issued in April after a baby in the family was taken to hospital with unexplained injuries.

The children were placed with other family members in the Harehills area.

They were moved to live with foster carers last week and the court heard they were unhappy and unhappy.

Their passports were handed over to the court.

Iain Hutchinson, solicitor for Leeds City Council, said there had been “extensive meetings” between key council figures and family members over the weekend following the disturbance.

He said the board’s position was “the children can be returned to foster care today.”

Mr Hutchinson said the authority recognized the children “will be delighted” to return to their extended family.

The council asked that there be no celebration in the streets.

Catherine Mason, a lawyer for the Children and Family Court Advisory Support Service (Cafcass), said the guardian, a social worker employed by Cafcass, who represents child welfare, opposed the placement.

In this case, she did not have time to visit the home and had some additional safety concerns, the court was told.

Judge Trotter-Jackson addressed some of these concerns and ruled that it would be in the best interests of the children to be placed with their extended family.

She said there was no guarantee the four children could stay together if they were in foster care, nor that they would be a “cultural fit.”

She supported foster care and said her primary concern was the welfare of the children.

Judge Trotter-Jackson asked everyone present to be “mindful” of their behavior and to “put the children first”.