PX (Contested final hearing), Re [2025] EWCOP 58 (T2)

IMPORTANT NOTICE

This judgment was delivered in draft via email on 9 th August 2025 following the contested interim hearing on 23 rd July 2025. It was formally handed down at a remote hearing on 14 th August 2025. This judgment was delivered in public but a transparency order dated 20 th May 2025 remains in force. The judge has given leave for this version of the judgment to be published on condition that (irrespective of what is contained in the judgment) in any published version of the judgment the anonymity of P must be strictly preserved. All persons, including representatives of the media and legal bloggers, must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so may be a contempt of court.

[2025] EWCOP 58 (T2)

IN THE COURT OF PROTECTION SITTING AT WOLVERHAMPTON

IN THE MATTER OF THE MENTAL CAPACITY ACT 2005

AND IN THE MATTER OF PX

Date 9 th August 2025

Before: HHJ Arthur

Between

STAFFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (LA)Applicant

PXRespondents

MXRespondent

FXRespondent

______________________________________________

JUDGMENT AT CONTESTED FINAL HEARING

23 rd JULY 2025

______________________________________________

Introduction:

[1]These proceedings were heard in public subject to a transparency order made on 20th May 2025.

[2]This judgment is being delivered to the parties in draft by email on 9th August 2025, with formal handing down listed at a remote hearing at 3.30pm on 14 August 2025. At the conclusion of the contested final hearing on 23rd July 2025, I gave my decision on the key issues arising in this case orally, but due to there being insufficient Court time during the hearing, I indicated to the parties at that time that I would provide my reasons via a written judgment as soon as possible thereafter. What follows are my reasons for the decisions which I outlined orally at the hearing.

[3]This judgment should be read in conjunction with the written judgments I provided following the urgent hearing on 2nd May 2025, and the contested interim hearing on 20th May 2025, so I will try to avoid repeating what was said in those two judgments.

[4]I am concerned with a young lady, ). She is 18 years old,. She has been diagnosed with Downs Syndrome, Hirschsprung’s Disease (a bowel disorder), Hypothyroidism and Nystagmus. She has learning difficulties, speech and language difficulties, which affect her capacity to make decisions about her affairs.

[5]The application which brought the case into Court proceedings was made by Staffordshire County Council (who I will call the local authority, or “LA” for short). The LA was represented by Mr Green of counsel, instructed by the solicitor with conduct, Ms R (who was unable to attend this hearing so the trainee legal executive Ms J attended instead), and the allocated social workers (“SWs”) Ms O, Mr A, Ms L, and Ms I, all of whom attended the hearing.

[6]PX’s mother is ,MX” She attended this hearing, initially represented by M Manning of counsel, and her instructing solicitor Ms C, but MX dispensed with their services over the luncheon adjournment, after which she was not legally represented, but she did not seek to adjourn the hearing to secure alternative legal representation, instead representing herself for the remainder of the hearing.

[7]PX’s father FX” He attended this hearing, and was represented by his solicitor, Ms V.

[8]PX did not attend the hearing as it would not have been in her interests to do so. She was represented at this hearing through the Official Solicitor (who I had invited to act as her litigation friend) who instructed Ms Sharron of counsel, and solicitor Ms L.

Background:

[9]I will not repeat the summary of the extensive history to this matter that was set out in my previous judgments from the hearings on 2nd and 20th May 2025, but simply update on events since those hearings. There has been one further hearing since then, on 10th July 2025.

[10]At the hearing on 20th May 2025, M informed the Court about four potential witnesses to whom MX said PX had made allegations of abuse by FX, so I directed that the LA obtain statements from them. One of the four witnesses wished to remain anonymous, and as nobody objected to them remaining anonymous, this was permitted. Another of the witnesses, W1 refused to sign the statement the LA had prepared on her behalf, saying that it did not match what she had said and she did not like how she came across in it. The LA provided the unsigned draft statement, a statement setting out how the interview was undertaken, exhibiting the transcript, the video recording of the Teams meeting with the LA solicitor from which the statement was produced, and the email correspondence between the LA and W1. MX filed a separate statement written directly by W1 which ran to over 112 pages including her reasons for not agreeing the content of the statement drafted by the LA.

[11]Despite having obtained legal representation after the hearing on 20th May 2025, at approximately 5.20pm the day before the hearing on 10th July 2025, MX unexpectedly provided videos of some of the conversations PX had with MX and one of the witnesses, W2 – although it was not at that stage clear who had taken the videos and to whom PX was talking. There was insufficient time for everyone to watch the videos and take instructions before the hearing started, but some advocates had watched sufficient of the videos to raise serious concerns about the nature of the videos (for example inappropriate and leading questions) and also whether confidential documents from these proceedings had been shown to these witnesses in breach of the Transparency Order. I therefore directed MX to file a statement setting out who took each video, the circumstances in which the video came to be taken including when and where, who else was present, whether PX was aware that the video was being taken, if so whether/how PX was told why the video was being made, and what other video evidence (if any) had been gathered. Any videos not taken by MX require a separate witness statement from the person who took each video covering the same information and whether they referred any concern to MX, the police or any other professional agency.

[12]On the morning of the last hearing on 10th July 2025, MX produced a statement running to 220 pages. There was insufficient time for everyone to read the statement and take instructions before the hearing started. I therefore provided for all other parties to file statements in response.

[13]Since the last hearing on 10th July 2025, PX’s solicitor Ms L visited PX at school and provided a lovely report about how happy PX appeared to be at school (which she described as her “special home”), looking forward to spending time with FX in the school holidays, and that she was fine with the contact arrangements for her to see MX in the school holidays. She said more than once: “MX still loves me” in a tone that gave the solicitor the impression that PX was reassuring herself that it was true. PX did not make the same comment regarding FX.

Parties’ positions:

[14]The issues for this final hearing are:(i) The contact that PX should have with MX and FX, including whether MX’s contact still needs to be supervised (as per the LA, FX, and OS’s view) or whether the supervision should be reduced or terminated (as per MX’s position – MX also argued that FX’s contact needs to be supervised);

(ii) Where PX should reside during school holidays (the LA, FX, and OS argue that as MX’s contact still needs to be supervised, PX cannot live with MX at any time including holidays, whereas MX argued that FX’s contact needs to be supervised so PX should live with her during the holidays instead);

(iii) Whether either MX or FX should be permitted to take PX on holiday outside the jurisdiction (MX wants to take PX on holiday to Sri Lanka to visit the maternal extended family, but the LA, FX, and OS argue that as MX’s contact still needs to be supervised, PX cannot travel abroad with MX).

The Law:

[15]The core legal principles which underpin my decision are as set out in my previous judgments so will not be repeated herein.

Preliminary issues/applications:

[16]At the start of the hearing on 23rd July 2025, MX sought permission to file an audio recording of the hospital incident on 15th April 2025, which I refused as she had had this in her possession since before the first hearing, yet had not mentioned its existence at any of the previous 3 hearings (on 2nd and 20th May and 10th July 2025). If MX had not considered it sufficiently important to raise it before, it could not be sufficiently important to risk disrupting this final hearing (potentially rendering it ineffective).

[17]MX also sought an extension of time to file the statement she was ordered at the last hearing to provide by 21st July 2025, which she had failed to provide. By the time the hearing started (at almost 12 noon, delayed by another case before it in the list which overran), she had still not finished preparing it, nor had she even shown it to her counsel. MX sought to delay the hearing starting until she had completed it. I refused permission to file it, as:

[18]she had failed to provide any reason for the delay;

[19]if she had not needed to show it to her counsel in order to provide instructions during the morning such that her counsel considered she was fully instructed to start her submissions, the contents of the statement could not be crucial to those submissions and therefore the hearing; and

[20]the statement was supposed to just cover the information regarding the videos (as outlined above) so it should not have been a lengthy document to prepare, and there was no reason for it running to 44 pages;

[21]there would be further delay after it was circulated whilst the Court and other parties read it; this would lead to there being insufficient time to complete the hearing.

[22]I directed MX’s counsel to take instructions as to the preparation of the videos and circulate that via email a.s.a.p., which she did. This referred to 11 videos, when only 6 videos had been circulated previously, so I asked her to provide all the videos to which she was referring, which she did, along with the video that W1 had taken of her conversation with PX to which W1 referred in her statements and Teams meeting with the LA. The Court and advocates then had to undertake a cross-referencing exercise over the luncheon adjournment to check which videos had not been circulated previously. MX never provided any reason for why she had not produced all the videos at the same time, or even earlier given that all the videos had been made when PX was in MX’s care in April/May 2025. No explanation was ever given by MX for why there had been a delay in disclosing the existence of all of the videos, and why MX had failed to mention their existence in the first 2 hearings on 2nd and 20th May 2025. However, as the videos were relied on by the LA, FX and OS to prove their concerns about MX, as well as being relied on by MX to prove her case against FX, I allowed MX to adduce and rely upon them even though they were provided so late without proper explanation. In the end the Court received:

[23]A video taken by MX’s friend W2 of her second conversation with PX (she did not record the first conversation earlier that same day) shortly after the hospital incident on 15th April 2025;

[24]A video (audio only) taken by MX’s friend W1 of part of her conversation with PX (she did not record the earlier part of the conversation that same day) on 20th April 2025;

[25]10 videos which MX says PX took of herself, whilst MX was also in the car, on the morning before the initial emergency hearing on 2nd May 2025.

[26]Also over the luncheon adjournment, and also without explanation, MX decided that she no longer wished to instruct her representatives, and they left Court. I asked if she wished to make any application regarding the loss of her representatives, but she said she did not and she was ready to proceed with the hearing on submissions as planned. She had sought to adjourn previous hearings (on 2nd and 20th May 2025) to allow her time to obtain legal representation, so I was satisfied that she was aware that she could ask for an adjournment if she so wished. As she had represented herself entirely appropriately at the first two hearings (on 2nd and 20th May 2025) I had no concerns regarding her ability to represent herself at this hearing.

[27]The Court clerk printed off the most recent documents for MX so that she had hard copies of what parties were referring to in submissions, namely the list of videos MX had provided via her counsel that morning, and the LA’s contact proposals (which was a draft working document being amended by the advocates during the discussions outside Court). The format of the hearing (to be dealt with on submissions) had been determined at the last hearing on 10th July 2025 when I had determined that there was no need for a separate fact finding hearing as the evidence that MX had produced in support of her allegations thus far could not be a sufficient basis on which the Court could make findings to the required standard of proof (on the balance of probabilities). This was of course subject to review, in light of any further evidence provided, but having watched the further videos of PX that MX had produced that morning, plus the video of the Teams meeting where W1’s instructions were taken, along with the updating written evidence, the evidential position remained the same, and it was not necessary for me to hear oral evidence from any witness as there was no evidential basis for making the findings MX sought (explored in more detail in the ‘analysis’ section below). I allowed everyone a right of reply, to ensure that everyone had a fair trial and said everything that they thought was necessary before I made my decisions.

The Evidence (written and video) and Submissions:

[28]For the purposes of determining the issues, I have considered the parties’ detailed oral submissions (of which I have 50 pages of my own contemporaneous notes), together with the written evidence of the bundle (over 1000 pages) and the video evidence adduced by MX before and during this hearing. Although I may not mention everything in this judgment, I have considered everything and referred to what was relevant to my decision.

[29]The LA, FX and OS all raised concerns regarding the videos provided by MX. The recordings by W2 and W1 contained leading questions, despite W1 saying (in her Teams meeting with the LA) that she “…didn’t want to coach her…”. W2’s video also included very obvious negative and shocked responses to what PX was saying which would also have been likely to have had a leading effect on PX. W1 referred in her Teams meeting with the LA to MX being “hysterical” which would also no doubt have had an impact on PX if she had been exposed to that. The videos MX said PX made in the car did not contain many questions from MX, but it was clear that something had triggered the recordings, so it is more likely than not that MX had said or asked something of PX which she had then responded to or answered as recorded on the videos. Because MX’s questions/prompts were not recorded, it is not known what was said, so it may well have been leading. The fact that there are 10 separate videos, rather than one continuous recording, suggests that there had to be multiple prompts to get PX’s account. The fact that MX was not forthcoming with the video evidence, failing to mention it at the hearings on 2nd and 20th May 2025, and even when she did mention it, failing to disclose all of it, suggests that MX has been selective with what she has disclosed, only providing what she thought would help her case and withholding what she thought might not assist. This raises significant questions regarding what was said by MX to elicit the responses from PX that were recorded in the 10 videos.

[30]None of the questioners (MX, W1, or W2) were trained in undertaking video interviews of children and vulnerable adults (although W1 referred to her previous job which involved taking statements). None of them appeared to know the Achieving Best Evidence guidance regarding how to conduct such interviews, as they breached numerous parts of that guidance – and there is no reason why they should be aware of that guidance or be able to follow or guess it without such training. However, that guidance is important because the accounts and evidence of children and vulnerable adults can be so affected by the way in which they are questioned. Unfortunately, the way in which (particularly) W2, and W1, and probably MX (given the interjections that were recorded) means that the Court cannot rely on what PX said in response as being her own unadulterated account, uninfluenced by those questioning her.

[31]In any event, what PX said on the videos went no further than has been said previously, and does not amount to evidence of sexual or physical abuse. Each incident she mentions has an obvious explanation. For example, FX shaving PX’s pubic hair is a common action with vulnerable adults to avoid hygiene issues. MX herself described in a statement an occasion when PX was in her care and requested MX’s assistance in the shower because her pubic hair had become matted with faeces. The suggestion that FX has watched PX whilst she was undertaking rectal washouts and/or unclothed whilst cleaning herself, is consistent with the need to ensure that hygiene was maintained safely and satisfactorily, given PX’s physical and cognitive limitations. There is nothing to suggest, never mind reach the standard of proof required to make a formal finding of fact, that there was anything physically or sexually abusive in any of the incidents described by PX.

[32]All of the matters raised in my previous judgments remain the case, with further evidence in support of them: MX’s passionate oral submissions recounting her own allegations of sexual abuse she had suffered at FX’s hands during their marriage, which she acknowledged had never been raised through numerous years of Family Court proceedings, and her suspicions of sexual abuse of PX which allegations had not been pursued or found true by the Family Court proceedings, remain at the front of MX’s mind. Likewise, she continues to raise and repeat other allegations she made within the Family Court proceeding such as FX’s mental health, drug use and excessive provision of medication to PX, physical abuse and shouting, and coercive controlling behaviour. She is constantly alert, and searches for, any signs that her beliefs are true. It appears that she cannot help herself. She will therefore be unable to prevent herself continuing to do so in future. She will continue to make leaps from innocent information such as the school promoting and supporting relationships (which was said in its prospectus and clarified by the school that it referred to friendships not sexual behaviour) into the belief that PX might have been sexually abused whilst at school. She will continue to act on these mistaken beliefs. In her oral submissions today she said that as she had been criticised for the videos, in future if she suspected abuse she would take PX to a professional such as a psychologist. Subjecting PX to yet another professional, asking questions about non-existent abuse based on false information provided by MX, would cause emotional harm to PX.

[33]Sadly MX cannot be trusted to manage her own behaviour appropriately. She said even at this hearing that she supports PX’s ongoing relationship with FX, but this is inconsistent with her belief that he has sexually abused her. Her position appears to fluctuate, and is unclear. At the second hearing on 20th May 2025 MX said:

“I’m not saying she’s been sexually abused, but I’m not not saying that.”

However, at this hearing MX appeared much clearer in her belief that PX had been sexually abused by FX, even though she had no further evidence in the meantime. MX’s contact must be supervised to prevent her from causing PX emotional harm by further interrogations by MX and her well-meaning but misguided and misinformed friends. The friends are working almost entirely from MX’s self-report, which they appear to believe without question, such as W2 saying in her statement:

“I believe that PX is being abused by her FX, I do not consider that she would be capable of lying. She is being brainwashed but after only 30 minutes with me she started to speak. FX is mentally ill. FX maybe (sic) drugging PX to abuse her.”

MS’s friend W3 said:

“[PX] is being tortured by FX and the conclusion I come to, is that I think he sounds like to me what I believe to be a paedophile…She told us, the mother, that the husband’s asking her to take off her clothes. He wants to see her naked and follows her. When she’s having a bath, he follows her and he peeps. Even when she goes to the toilet…I heard the story from both the mother and daughter, on separate occasions…FX is a pharmacist, and he must be pumping her with medication. My understanding is that it’s racism…the SWs linked to FX are racist.”

W2 and W3 do not know FX so their only source of information can be MX. W1 also relies on the facial expression she saw when PX received a message from FX, which could have many explanations. MX’s friends do not provide any check on MX’s behaviour, so cannot act as a safeguarding factor or supervise her contact with PX appropriately.

[34]In addition to the videos of PX which were not produced immediately at the first hearing despite having been filmed and therefore available beforehand, MX has now produced notes she says were written by PX whilst she was in her care before the initial hearing on 2nd May 2025, which again could have been produced earlier but were not. These notes cover topics bearing a striking resemblance to MX’s case, including PX’s passport being looked after by MX (instead of FX), going with MX to Sri Lanka, and wanting MX to help with her education and see her medical records. The notes are even signed and dated. It is unlikely given PX’s limitations that all of these thoughts have occurred to her coincidentally, without input from MX. The only reasonable explanation, and therefore my finding on the balance of probabilities, is that MX has prompted PX to write these notes in order to support her case. Even if this is done kindly, with PX’s cooperation (and PX is reported by numerous people including professionals to be eager to please) it is emotionally abusive of MX to use PX to produce evidence to support MX’s case. Given PX’s cognitive limitations, she is at greater risk than most people of her views being influenced, and MX and her friends using leading questions to obtain the answers they are looking for makes the evidence unreliable, and the collection of the evidence harmful to PX.

[35]MX’s submissions contained no information or argument other than her belief that FX is abusing PX based on her putting things together in hindsight:

“I’ve been sexually abused [by FX], and I believe from what PX and a third party were telling me that PX is also being sexually abused. The LA asked why, if I believed FX was sexually abusing PX, I didn’t report it previously. When I was married to FX, I wasn’t equating my own abuse to what was occurring with PX. PX needed rectal washouts. It was only on reflection and with hindsight that I can now see due to FX’s insistence of keeping commercial rectal irrigation as the option for her treatment, when other options were available, it was because he “wanted to preserve her aesthetic” (as he told me once), he didn’t want her to have a stoma bag. And the sexual abuse was towards me when we were together. I didn’t equate it, it didn’t even occur to me that he would be abusing PX by performing rectal washouts.”

MX continues to add 2 and 2 together and come up with far more than 4, adding in things from hindsight that had not occurred to her at the time, because it had not been apparent. MX even said that at the first hearing on 2nd May 2025 she was unsure whether or not she thought PX had been sexually abused by FX, which was why she hesitated to make that allegation at the first hearing, and did not produce the video evidence, as she did not want FX to face such an allegation unless it were true. However, MX has got no additional evidence since PX’s removal, so the only change is in the increase of her beliefs, not in the evidence on which they are based.

[36]MX felt that she had been treated unfairly, because when she had kept PX overnight without permission in April 2025, the LA had taken action and issued proceedings, whereas when FX had suspended her contact in January 2025 the LA did not take action. She fails to recognise that FX’s action was following MX unilaterally deciding to keep PX against the contact arrangements which were in place, which did not allow her overnight contact at the time because she had not completed the updated rectal washout training. Whilst MX disputes that she required additional training, and disputes that the arrangements were fair, this has all been dealt with by my previous judgments, which all follow from the judgment of HHJ Harris (as she was then) in the Family proceedings. MX said she understood the Court was bound by the judgment but also said that it was wrong, and that everything had “snowballed” from there because everyone was basing decisions on it. FX’s solicitor suggested that actually it was MX who “snowballed” a collection of innocuous comments together into something sinister. An example of this was given by MX during her submissions where she referred to PX saying:

“Daddy did hurt my bum.”

It was pointed out to MX that PX had never been reported to say this, and that the closest similar comment was from one of the videos where PX said: Daddy did touch my bum.” MX then referred to an occasion in 2023 when she had emailed the LA SW saying that PX was drowsy, ill, and “complaining of bum pain” – there is no suggestion that any pain PX was suffering was related to FX, rather than whatever ill-health she was suffering. When MX was challenged about there being no evidence connecting FX to PX’s symptoms or allegations, MX responded:

“There’s no evidence that it isn’t FX.”

From MX’s perspective, she appears to assume everything negative could be FX’s fault until proved otherwise. PX’s barrister summarised the issue succinctly by referring to the closing submissions by FX’s barrister at the HHJ Harris hearing, who submitted:

“MX will not accept anybody’s truth other than her own. Furthermore, in the Court’s assessment she demonstrates no insight into how her behaviours have impacted on the children, continue to impact on the children and indeed very sadly, now place those relationships at grave risk.”

PX’s barrister submitted that these behaviours continue to be an ongoing problem years later. If anything there had been an escalation in MX’s beliefs and actions taken in response.

[37]MX also complained that the school treated her unfairly, providing her with less information than they sent to FX, and notifying FX of her visits when they did not do the same for her. FX’s solicitor said:

“The school had set up an email account so that everything automatically went to both Ps, but MX didn’t like the set up, and objected.”

It was unclear what the problem was, but FX has no objection to all correspondence being sent to both Ps unless there is a reason why it should not be (e.g. raising a concern about the other P’s behaviour pending investigation, or logistics only relevant to 1 parent’s visit). MX has complained that the school has not responded to her emails asking for clarification/reassurance, and the school has complained about being inundated with emails from MX. All of this suggests that the lack of communication about which MX is complaining is not that she does not receive the standard school communication, but that she does not receive an answer to every single one of her questions to her satisfaction. I will therefore direct the school to send any standard correspondence to both Ps where there is no reason why one of the Ps should not see it, but will not make any order expecting the school to send more communication than it considers reasonable in the circumstances.

[38]PX’s barrister also requested some additional orders: - a Deprivation of Liberty (“DOLs”) order because whilst PX is not locked up at school or FX’s home she is not allowed to wander off on her own either. FX would act as the Rule 1.2 representative so the DOLs restrictions would only need to be reviewed annually, but it would provide a proper structure and regulation to the limited restrictions in place on PX. Any review hearing shall be conducted as a consideration of the papers unless any party to the application requests an oral hearing or the court decides that an oral hearing is required. Any request for an oral hearing shall be referred to HHJ Arthur in the first instance, in the event that HHJ is available. - a permission requirement for MX seeking to issue fresh proceedings in respect of PX, similar to the s. 91(14) order imposed by HHJ Harris at the conclusion of the Family Law proceedings. HHJ Harris described the years of Family Law proceedings as emotionally harmful in and of themselves, and these Court of Protection proceedings run the risk of the same problem but without the end-date of PX turning 18. Whilst MX did not issue these proceedings, it was her actions in unilaterally retaining PX in her care against the arrangements for contact which were in place at the time that triggered the LA’s application. As with a s. 91(14) order under Family Law, a permission requirement is a restriction on the litigation freedom of those who might wish to make an application in respect of PX, but it is a limited restriction, because any meritorious application will be granted permission to proceed. It is only a filter to prevent unmeritorious applications from proceeding to a stage where they might cause disruption and harm to PX. It is therefore an entirely sensible approach, coupled with reserving future applications to myself to ensure they are considered in the context of previous judgments. - A direction that the LA approach each third party who had taken a video of PX’s allegations or might hold one, and request that they delete the videos securely and provide an undertaking to the Court that they had done so, and had not transmitted the video on to anyone else. This is a sensible approach to avoid such sensitive material being held by anyone who should not have it. The LA (and potentially solicitors representing other parties) will retain copies of all the videos provided within these proceedings, as part of their record-keeping duties. There is no need for videos to be held by unregulated third parties.

[39]At the end of the hearing, during her “right of reply” submissions, MX raised fresh allegations that FX had taken PX to a Court in Birmingham on the morning before the hospital appointment on 15th April 2025, and that she believed this was to make an application in respect of PX to thwart her own intended application for deputyship. FX denied taking PX to any Court, or making any application, or knowing that MX intended to make an application for deputyship. In any event, these proceedings were commenced by the LA, entirely in response to MX’s actions in unilaterally keeping PX in her care, which could not have been predicted never mind planned by FX, so these proceedings could not possibly be the result of FX trying to thwart MX’s deputyship application which she has not made nor notified him of her intention to make. This was yet another example of MX putting pieces of information together and reaching illogical conclusions not warranted by the information available.

Capacity:

[40]Nothing said during this hearing has changed my decision set out in my previous judgments that PX lacks the capacity to conduct these proceedings to make decisions regarding where she should live, and with whom/how she should spend time, make decisions in respect of her care and support and make decisions in respect of her use of the internet and social media. I will not repeat the basis of that decision as it is set out in my previous judgments and has not changed in the intervening few weeks, given the nature and extent of her problems which are long-standing and not likely to fluctuate or improve. I note that whilst PX’s solicitor did not undertake any formal updating assessment of PX’s litigation capacity, she spoke to PX at length about her life and the issues relating to proceedings during her visit to PX at college, and did not reconsider the view reached by all professionals previously that PX lacks litigation capacity. She did urge caution by proposing not to include decisions regarding PX’s health at this hearing, as there were no decisions which needed to be taken regarding PX’s health at present, and such decisions should be reached on a case by case basis, if and when they arise.

[41]I therefore make a declaration that PX lacks capacity to: i) Conduct these proceedings; ii) make decisions as to where she should live; iii) make decisions as to what contact she should have with her parents, including indirect contact and via social media. iv) make decisions in respect of her care and support iv) make decisions regarding her use of the internet and social media

Best Interests analysis:

[42]Having concluded that PX lacks capacity to make decisions about where to live and what contact she should have with her parents, the next question is whether it is in her best interests to make any orders regarding those issues, out of the available options. The only realistic options available are for PX to spend the school holiday’s in FX’s care (as proposed by the LA and FX) or in MX’s care (as proposed by MX). Of these available options, which of these is in PX's best interests, with reference to the factors set out in s.4 MCA 2005? For all the reasons set out above, MX’s contact must continue to be supervised by professionals for the foreseeable future. This effectively determines all other decisions. PX can only spend holidays with FX because professional supervisors cannot supervise PX with MX for extended periods. Likewise MX cannot take PX on holiday, never mind abroad, until she can have unsupervised contact. MX’s telephone, text and video call communication with PX needs to be monitored to ensure that the contents are appropriate and the frequency/volume is not too much for PX, which the college is currently doing and will continue to do. There is no basis for putting any restrictions on FX’s contact with PX.

[43]Hopefully arrangements can be relaxed in the future, because there is no doubt that PX would enjoy and benefit from a holiday with MX to Sri Lanka to see her extended maternal family there and her cultural heritage, but this can only happen if and when MX has stopped pursuing her own misguided fears.

[44]In considering PX's best interests, I have considered the factors outlined within section 4 of the 2005 Act. This includes, so far as is reasonably ascertainable, PX's wishes and feelings (past and present), beliefs and values and any other factors that would impact on her decision, were she to have capacity to make it herself. PX continues to make it clear to multiple professionals (most recently, her own solicitor Ms L during her visit only days before this hearing) that she wishes to spend the holidays (when she is not living at College) with her parents. This wish has been consistent on different occasions over a long period of time. The only person reporting that PX does not want to see FX is MX, and her reporting cannot be considered accurate or unbiased, in light of everything found above. I have no doubt that PX might want to spend longer with MX than she has been allowed to recently, because her time with MX has been very limited by the supervision requirements. That may be possible in future once the risk of emotional harm reduces so that PX’s wishes can play more of a role in the balancing exercise of PX’s best interests. I am satisfied that PX enjoys spending time with FX and is happy in his care, and there is no satisfactory or reliable evidence that she is being sexually or physically or emotionally abused by him, and therefore no basis for any restrictions on his time with PX.

[45]Other factors in section 4 of the 2005 Act are consulting (if it is practicable and appropriate), the views of identified individuals, including anyone engaged in caring for PX or interested in her welfare. This obviously includes PX’s parents. FX’s views align entirely with the LA, OS, and all other professionals involved, such as the staff at College. MX’s views are the only ones to run contrary to everyone else’s views, and I have set out above why I have reason not to follow MX’s views, as her concerns are not substantiated by any reliable evidence.

Conclusion:

[46]All factors set out in s. 4 of the MCA 2005 point to it being in PX’s welfare best interests to spend the holidays in FX’s care, and for her time with MX to be supervised by a professional. Where none is available, MX’s contact will necessarily be limited to video calls.

[47]The Court therefore grants an order in the terms requested by the Applicant LA, for the reasons above:(i) I am entirely satisfied on all that I have read that PX lacks capacity to conduct these proceedings, and lacks capacity to make a decision about her residence and contact arrangements, so I continue the previous interim declaration as a final order. I am entirely satisfied that PX also lacks capacity to make decisions in respect of her care and support and make decisions regarding her use of the internet and social media.

(ii) For the reasons set out above, I am entirely satisfied that it is in PX’s best interests that she should spend the college holidays in FX’s care.

(iii) For the reasons set out above, I am entirely satisfied that it is in PX’s best interests that her face to face contact with MX should be supervised by a professional, and where (for practical reasons) this is not possible, MX’s contact must be limited to video calls, now to be monitored by a professional (college staff or a SW).

[48]Although PX will no doubt be distressed at her contact with MX (which she enjoys) being reduced, this is necessary for PX’s best interests, and must continue for as long as required by MX’s beliefs and behaviour. IT IS DECLARED THAT: (1). PX lacks capacity to litigate these proceedings and to make decisions about residence and contact arrangements. (2). It is in PX’s best interests to reside with FX in the college holidays. (3). It is in PX’s best interests for her direct contact with MX to be supervised by a professional (such as the LA or the school staff or someone authorised by them), in accordance with the LA’s contact plan, which shall be kept under regular review by the Applicant LA.

[49]I wish to conclude by expressing my considerable gratitude to everyone involved in this case for their engagement and cooperation through difficult proceedings.

[50]That is my judgment. HHJ Arthur 9th August 2025