West Berkshire Council v Mother & Ors [2025] EWFC 261

[2025] EWFC 261

Case No RG24C50146/FD25C40693

IN THE FAMILY COURT AT SLOUGH

Date 16 September 2025

The Law Courts

Windsor Road

Slough

SL1 2HE

Before

HIS HONOUR JUDGE RICHARD CASE

(sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge)

Re C (OCD: Parental Obstruction of Care)

Between

WEST BERKSHIRE COUNCILApplicant

MOTHER (1)Respondent

FATHER (2)Respondent

CHILD C (3)Respondent

for Applicant:

Victoria Flowers counsel instructed by the Applicant Council

for Respondents:

Rob Littlewood counsel instructed by the First Respondent Mother

Second Respondent Father in person for in person

Gill Honeyman counsel instructed by the Third Respondent child by their Child’s Guardian, Leeanda Morreale

Hearing Hearing dates: 4-7, 11-12 and 14 August and 16 September 2025

This judgment was delivered in private. The judge has given permission 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 the children and members of their family 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.

APPROVED JUDGMENT

This judgment was handed down at a hearing listed at 10am on 16 September 2025.

Contents Summary 4 Parties 7 Background 7 Chronology 7 Parental responsibility 9 Father 10 Positions 12 Local Authority 12 Mother 12 Father 13 Children’s Guardian 13 Evidence Summary 13 Law 14 Threshold 14 Welfare 16 Risk of Harm 17 Non-Molestation Order 17 Section 91(14) Order 20 Threshold 23 1: Parents failed to engage with CETR Team 23 2: C not seen between November 2022 and 7 February 2023 24 3: Father stated he will not engage with CIN plan 25 4: Parents failed to answer the door to social worker 26 5: Father failed to acknowledge concerns of health and social care professionals 27 6: Father failed to engage with Care Education and Treatment Review 29 7: Father withdrew consent to Keyworking Team support for C 30 8: Father requested face to face GP visits cease 30 9: C’s health deteriorating due to failure of parents to engage 30 10: Parents did not agree assessments of C and themselves in pre-proceedings 31 11: Father declined face to face treatment for C for Tier 4 referral 32 12: Child Assessment Order granted on 16 August 2024 33 13: Father applied for C to be discharged from mental health section 33 14: Parents withdrew C from school limiting her educational opportunities 34 15: C did not leave home between January 2023 and August 2024 35 16: Crisis/Home Treatment Team not able to access C 37 17: Mother has caused harm to C 38 18: Father has undermined C’s ability to trust professionals 38 19: Father’s method of communicating C’s needs has affected C’s confidence 39 Conclusions 39 Welfare 40 Wishes and feelings 40 Physical, emotional, educational needs and age, sex and background 41 Likely effect of change in circumstances 44 Capability of parents: Mother 45 Capability of parents: Father 56 Any harm suffered or at risk of suffering 64 Capability of others: A and husband 70 Range of powers 71 Holistic balancing exercise 73 Realistic Option 1: Return home 73 Realistic Option 2: Remaining in placement with a Care Order 73 Realistic Option 3: Placement with A and her husband with a Care Order 73 Comparison of Options 74 Contact 74 Non-Molestation Order against the Father 75 Section 91(14) Order 85 Conclusion 86 Letter to C 88

[1]In relation to threshold I have made the following findings:

[2]A Child in Need Plan was initiated on 25th August 2022, various efforts were made to support the family via CAMHS, the social work team, the Emotional Health Academy and the Eating Disorders Team but appointments could not be arranged or were cancelled by the Mother.

[3]C was not seen between November 2022 and 31 December 2022.

[4]On 29th January 2024 Father stated that the family will no longer engage with the Local Authority and the Child in Need plan

[5]On 15 March 2024 the allocated social worker and CAMHS attempted a joint home visit but the door was not answered. There is no evidence that this was deliberate disengagement by the parents.

[6]On 8 and 21 March, 15, 19 and 25 April, 2, 13, 16 and 28 May, 12, 20 and 26 June, 11 and 24 July 2024 Father denied entry to the home either on grounds the social worker was trespassing or because he reported C did not want to see the social worker.

[7]On 26 March 2024 the Father informed the Local Authority in a video meeting he would not engage with the Local Authority under the Child in Need plan and informed the Local Authority they had no right to visit the family home without permission.

[8]On 10 April 2024, the CAMHS Team recommended a Care Education and Treatment Review for C as a prerequisite to having a LDA (Learning Disability and Autism) ‘hospital-at-home’. Father did not consent to West Berkshire Children’s Services or the Berkshire Keyworking Team being involved.

[9]During the pre-proceedings meeting on 14 June 2024, the parents stated that they did not agree to any proposed assessments of C and of themselves.

[10]A tier 4 hospital at home bed referral was closed around 5 July 2024 because the Father declined face to face treatment.

[11]On 16 August 2024 the court was satisfied that: (a). The local authority has reasonable cause to suspect that C is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm; (b). An assessment of the state of C’s health and development is required to enable the local authority to determine whether or not C is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm; and (c). It is unlikely that such an assessment will be made, or will be satisfactory, in the absence of a child assessment order under section 43 Children Act 1989.

[12]C has been home educated from age 7. C has had limited opportunities to learn about other settings; she was home educated from the age of seven and although she regularly engaged in home education groups and had some playdates in other people’s homes before she became unwell, her day-to-day experience has been in her home with her family. This has also affected her opportunities for peer relationships.

[13]On 1 January 2023 C was admitted to hospital with a history of limited fluid and no food intake in the previous 72 hours.

[14]C did not leave the family home between discharge from Basingstoke Hospital in January 2023 and being sectioned under the Mental Health Act in August 2024 save for a 3 day admission to Basingstoke Hospital between 15 and 17 February 2023.

[15]Following discharge from Basingstoke Hospital two meetings with CAMHS were cancelled by the Mother before 2 February 2023.

[16]Mother’s ways of understanding C and interacting with her have caused harm to C’s development.

[17]Father’s approach to professionals has undermined C’s own ability to trust professionals in supportive roles.

[18]I have found that the threshold test for making public law orders is met.

[19]I consider that a Care Order with a care plan for C to remain in a residential placement is in C’s welfare interest and I approve the arrangements for contact.

[20]I make the following Non-Molestation Order against the Father to last until C turns 18 or leaves her residential placement permanently pursuant to a change in her care plan whichever occurs first: 1) The Father must not harass or pester C’s placement or any staff at any placement where C is placed whether directly or indirectly including by email, letter, phone call or video call. 2) The Father must not communicate with the placement including by email, letter, phone call or video call. All communication shall be via the Local Authority limited to 1 email per week of not more than 1,000 words.

[21]I also make an order under section 34 Children Act 1989 directing that there shall be no indirect contact between the Father and C and a further paragraph to the Non-Molestation Order to support that: 3) The Father must not indirectly communicate with C including by email, letter, phone call or video save via the Local Authority.

[22]I will direct substituted service of the Non-Molestation Order pursuant to FPR 6.19 by Royal Mail tracked delivery with the Local Authority to file a certificate of service attaching the delivery receipt.

[23]I make the following order pursuant to section 91(14) Children Act 1989: The Father may not apply to discharge the Care Order or make an application for contact without the permission of the court until C reaches 18 and any request for permission will be considered on the papers and the parties shall not be notified of any request for permission unless the court, upon review of the papers, considers an oral hearing is necessary to determine the request.

Parties

[24]In order to maintain anonymity in the event of publication of this judgment I will refer to the parents as Mother and Father or M and F and the child with whom I am concerned as C. I shall refer to C’s older sister, in relation to whom a connected persons assessment is being completed, as A. I mean no disrespect to any of them. Background Chronology

[25]The Guardian’s final analysis provides the following background: The local authority became involved with C in August 2022 under the auspices of a Child in Need Plan, which progressed to support provided via Child Protection Planning. Concerns at this point related to C’s complex presentation with regard to both her physical and mental health, within the context of other adult siblings having similarly complex mental health presentations. The reports from the local authority, health and education services during this time period indicated that the family were not meaningfully engaging with support services and, at times, obstructed her care. This resulted in C’s needs not being met within the home and her experiencing harm with respect to her mental and physical health, as well as her emotional, behavioural and social development. C’s health deteriorated in 2023 to such a degree that she was treated as an inpatient in [Basingstoke] hospital before being discharged home for further treatment… … The concerns were to such a degree that in August 2024 the local authority applied to the court for a Child Assessment Order to be granted, which included a request that the social worker assess the home, that C undergoes an assessment of her physical and mental health and that an occupational health assessment take place. The application was opposed by the parents but supported by the guardian and directed by the court. The directed assessments, however, were superseded by C being detained under Section 2 of the Mental Health Act (1983) for assessment at the [] Hospital. C remained at the hospital for treatment subsequently subject to a section 3 Order and from November 2024 she remained in hospital voluntarily for treatment. … C remained in hospital until February 2025, at this stage she was discharged to [placement] where she has remained for the duration of the proceedings.

[26]The following is taken from the Local Authority case summary for the hearing on 8 October 2024 [A296]: 8. These care proceedings were issued on 2nd September 2024 as a result of information that a mental health tribunal hearing was taking place on 3rd September 2024 when there was to be consideration of C’s discharge from section 2 MHA 1983 inpatient. 9. The matter came before HHJ Case on 3 September 2024 at a remote hearing held by CVP. The local authority was granted an ICO until the conclusion of this hearing.

[27]And from the case summary for the hearing on 15 May 2025: a. C has OCD, depression, anxiety, avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder (ARFID), emetophobia, is described in [s]ome CAMHS documentation to have demand avoidance and was diagnosed with Autism in 2024 [E509-510].

[28]C is a 16 year old girl. She has four adult siblings; two live in the family home with Mother and Father, two live independently including A who is married and subject to a connected person assessment. Although the parents live together they are not married and are no longer in an intimate relationship.

[29]C is subject to an Interim Care Order granted by me on 3 September 2024. Until 21 August 2024 C lived with both parents. Between 21 August 2024 and 12 February 2025 she was an in-patient at an adolescent psychiatric unit. She was then placed at a CQC regulated but Ofsted unregistered therapeutic placement. A Deprivation of Liberty Order (DOLS) was granted by HHJ Moradifar on 4 July 2025 in case FD25C40693. That was on the basis that C had engaged in very risky behaviour on 10 April 2025 when she left the placement to meet in person with adults aged 26 and 27 who she had met online. Messages passing between them indicated the adults’ intention to engage in sexual activity and “allude to C seeking to get pregnant” [M7/2.16].

[30]A DOLS review was listed on day 1 of this final hearing, 4 August 2025. I extended the DOLS order but only to 6 August 2025 because I was informed that following a public complaint about a child in the placement Ofsted had informed the home that because they were not registered they must cease operating. Taking that and the home’s perception of the risk posed by the Father into account they decided to end the placement for C pending consideration of an application for Ofsted registration. I wanted the Father to have notice of the change of placement. On day 3, 6 August 2025, I extended the DOLS order to 16 September 2025, the day I intended to hand down this judgment. The plan was for C to move to an associated placement where the same staff could care for C whilst the original placement continued to pursue the Ofsted registration it had applied for. I will say a little more about this below. Accordingly C has now moved from her parents’ care, to hospital, to the first and now a second placement with a care plan she will return to the first placement.

[31]On 5 August 2025, having heard evidence from Ms Arnold, I queried whether the Local Authority had given thought to protecting the security of C’s placement. On 7 August I made an order requiring the Local Authority to file an updated care plan (addressing therapy for the Mother) and a statement “with regards to any request to the court to make ancillary orders to secure C’s placement” and a statement from the placement provider by 4pm 8 August 2025. As the Father was not in court and noting that whilst he had not been excused attendance he had said in correspondence he would not attend on 11 August (the next listed day) or 12 August (when he was due to give evidence) and being mindful of his preference to address the court in writing I gave him permission to file and serve a witness statement in response by 4pm 11 August 2025. He did not file a statement.

[32]On 12 August 2025 I made an order reciting:a. The local authority will invite the court to make: i. A non-molestation order in the terms set out at [C330] in the statement of Ms Demerdjiev dated 8.8.25 or in other terms to address the issue of the father’s ongoing communication with the placement; and ii. An order pursuant to section 91(14) Children Act 1989 prohibiting any applications by the father without permission to discharge any care order made by the court, or to seek any section 34 contact orders, until C’s 18th birthday.

b. The court will be considering whether to make a non-molestation order governing the father’s indirect contact with C.

[33]I directed that those issues would be considered on 14 August (when I was due to hear closing submissions) and would be determined on submissions.

Parental responsibility

[34]The parents share parental responsibility for C with the Local Authority under the Interim Care Order. Father

[35]I need to say a little more about the Father and his engagement with the proceedings. I note he has an autism diagnosis.

[36]He has made numerous applications (40 in July alone) which were not issued as no fee was paid and he was not eligible for Help With Fees. The final hearing was listed by me on 15 May 2025, this was on a provisional basis because the IRH had not yet taken place but there was a need to set aside final hearing dates prior to C turning 17. The Father did not attend the hearing on 15 May 2025 although subsequently he was served with the order. The hearing dates were confirmed at the IRH on 1 July 2025 which the Father also did not attend. He informed the court by email dated 30 July 2025 that he was not going to attend the final hearing on 7 August (Dr Prentice’s oral evidence), 11 August (Mother’s oral evidence), 12 August (Father’s own oral evidence), 13 August (the Guardian’s evidence) and that he may not be able to attend on 14 August (submissions). The order of 15 May 2025 recorded that all parties were required to attend the final hearing and “should a party fail to attend, orders, including final orders, may be made in their absence” [B284]. I have reminded myself of FPR 27.4(2). I am satisfied by his own admission the Father was aware of the hearing dates and, given the imminence of C turning 17, decided it was in her welfare interest for me to continue and it would be contrary to the overriding objective to delay proceedings which at the date of first day of the final hearing were already at 11 months post-issue.

[37]I confirmed participation directions at the IRH for the Father’s benefit, including that the Father could join the hearing remotely by video with his camera off save when asking questions or giving evidence, extended times for any cross-examination by the Father to allow reflection time by him, permission for him to put questions in writing for me to ask to be filed by 4pm the day before and/or for supplementary questions to be put in writing using the CVP chat function. It was necessary to limit the length of any written opening submissions to 10 pages (I limited all other parties to the same, save for the Local Authority who were allowed 15 pages) and closing submissions to 20 pages. At the IRH I refused permission for the Father to audio or video record the hearing, a matter which I had previously directed I would re-consider at the IRH having previously refused it for interlocutory hearings.

[38]It is fair to say the Father did not agree with those directions, as evidenced in part by the numerous unissued applications following the IRH on 1 July 2025. Whilst I did not formally consider the applications as they were unissued I did read them and they included requests, sometimes duplicated, for permission to file longer documents, for questions of him to be provided to him in writing 5 days before the hearing, for him “not to be interrupted during any oral presentation”, for an “independent assessment of reasonable adjustments”, a “re-run of the advocates meeting” and a re-listing of the IRH, for 5 days after the close of evidence to prepare a written response and for an adjournment of the final hearing.

[39]Throughout the course of the proceedings the Father has never attended a hearing in person, sometimes he attended hearings remotely and sometimes not; at hearings he has attended he has sometimes refused to speak and at other times has done so.

[40]The Father did not file a witness statement as directed by 11 July 2025 nor a position statement as directed by 31 July 2025. As noted above he did not attend to give evidence and has not filed closing submissions.

[41]On the working day before the final hearing was to commence he sent an email to the local court office (rather than to the CTSC) saying that he would audio record the final hearing and that if he was sent a CVP link he would take that as meaning permission was granted to record. I asked HMCTS to reply copying in all parties in these terms: The Father has informed the court he will audio record the final hearing commencing on Monday 4 August 2025 if he is sent a CVP link. The court has determined that the Father is not permitted to do so. Unless at the start of the hearing the Father confirms orally or via the CVP chat function that he is not recording the hearing and will not do so he will be disconnected. Further correspondence on this issue will not be responded to.

[42]He responded to that by asserting, again, that if received a link to join the hearing the court will be “consenting to the father asserting his rights under the Equality Act 2010” and that he “will not engage further during the hearing”. He indicated if the court does not consent to him recording he should not be sent the link.

[43]In accordance with my previous order (at the IRH giving permission for the Father to attend remotely) a link was sent and at the outset of the hearing on 4 August I asked the Father to confirm he was not recording the hearing and will not do so and said that if he fails to confirm this he will be disconnected. Using the chat function he indicated he could not confirm that he was not recording and I therefore asked that he be disconnected. On 5 August, upon him indicating he was recording, he was disconnected. On 6 August the court did not sit at 10am because there had been time to hear from the witness due to give evidence that day on the previous afternoon. My clerk informed me the Father had not attempted to join although in a later email he asserted he had and was waiting for 45 minutes. He did not join the hearing at 2pm for the DOLS review. On 7, 11 and 12 August the Father did not join. He had sent correspondence indicating he would not do so. The court did not sit on 13 August as there was no further evidence to hear; although the correspondence from the Father indicated he would not join that day, later in the day he emailed the court to say he had in fact joined by CVP. He was not admitted because the court was not sitting. On 14 August, the day timetabled for submissions, he had indicated he might join the hearing. He did join by CVP but refused to say orally or in the chat box whether he was recording even after I warned him he would be disconnected and accordingly he was he was disconnected. Positions Local Authority

Positions

[44]The Local Authority seek a final Care Order with a care plan of C remaining in a residential placement, the plan being to move back to the first placement which was terminated by reason of the complaint to Ofsted. The care plan provides for a full connected persons assessment of A and her husband under the auspices of the Care Order with a consideration thereafter of whether a transition to their care is in the welfare interest of C.

[45]The plan for contact with the Mother is a continuation of current contact namely twice a week for 2 hours supervised by the placement and which may take place in the community and once a fortnight for 1.5 hours in the family home, again supervised. There is also provision in the amended final care plan for the Mother to have parenting sessions with a systemic psychotherapist in the CAMHS children in care team until C turns 18; this is designed to support the Mother to develop her capacity to tolerate C’s distress and be alert to being “pulled into helping C in ways that may be counterproductive” [D39].

[46]Prior to the start of the final hearing C was having contact with the Father once a week for 1 hour supervised in the placement. Because of evidence received from the placement during the course of the final hearing the Local Authority moved this to a contact centre to reduce the risks of the placement being destabilised; that was reflected in an amended care plan. I have considered this further below. In addition the fortnightly supervised contact at the family home for 1.5 hours will continue.

Mother

[47]At the outset of the hearing the Mother did not accept threshold was met and she sought the return of C to her care or placement with A.

[48]In her position statement for the final hearing she stated: [A591]a. She accepts that were her daughter to be returned to her care the presence of the father would impede her efforts to provide C with the care she requires. Accordingly, she will look for separate accommodation for herself and her daughter. She asks that the local authority supports her in this endeavour should she be eligible for public housing. If this proves difficult, mother reports that the father has indicated he may leave the home if it increases the chance of C returning home.

b. She recognises that the relationship between herself and F is such that she needs to separate from him practically as a well as emotionally. She recognises that her former partner’s conduct in terms of this litigation and case management has not been helpful to either herself or her efforts to secure the return of her daughter.

[49]On the day before I was due to hear submissions I was informed by counsel that she had changed her position and he updated me that her position was: M no longer opposes the making of a Care Order She accepts that her current circumstances are such that she could not realistically seek the return of C. In any event, it remains her case that C’s best interests could not be met if she were to return to a home in which the Father resides. Father

[50]The Father does not accept threshold is met and seeks the return of C to the home or for her to be cared for by her older sibling, A, and her husband.

Children’s Guardian

[51]The Guardian supports the Local Authority’s application and care plan.

Evidence Summary

[52]Whilst I have considered the bundles (the main bundle, medical records bundle (referred to as MED in this judgment) and the Child Assessment Order application bundle (referred to as CAO in this judgment)) I have particularly considered the following documents: a) Case summary of the Local Authority; b) Position statement of the Mother; c) Position statement of the Guardian and written closing submissions; d) Composite threshold [A526] and the documents referred to therein; e) Final social work statement of Mandy Arnold, assistant team manager [C254]; f) Viability assessment of A and husband [C236]; g) Kinship assessment plan of A and husband [C305]; h) Psychiatric report of Mother prepared by Dr Musters [E409]; i) Psychiatric report of Father prepared by Dr Iyer [E750]; j) Great Ormond Street Hospital (GOSH) report prepared by Dr Wilkinson and Dr Prentice [E453]; k) Parenting assessment of the Mother prepared by Ms Laulik-Walters ISW [E785]; l) Parenting assessment of the Father prepared by Ms Laulik-Walters [E832]; m) Final care plan [D29] and amended final care plan [D37]; n) Final statement of Mother [C293]; and o) Guardian’s final analysis [E886] and a letter from C [E911].

[53]I heard oral evidence from the former social worker, Ms Rosier, the assistant team manager, Ms Arnold, Dr Prentice, the Mother and the Guardian. The Father did not attend court on the day he was due to give evidence.

Law

[54]I remind myself that the burden of proving the need for a public law order rests with the Local Authority on the balance of probabilities.

Threshold

[55]I must consider if the Local Authority has proved that the threshold test set out in section 31(2) Children Act 1989 is met. It provides: (2) A court may only make a care order or supervision order if it is satisfied –(a) that the child concerned is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm; and

(b) that the harm, or likelihood of harm, is attributable to – (i) the care given to the child, or likely to be given to him if the order were not made, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give to him; or (ii) the child’s being beyond parental control.

[56]I remind myself that the relevant date for the purposes of making the assessment is the date on which the Local Authority initiated the procedure (Re M (Care

[57]I also consider Hedley J in the same case at para 49 “…society must be willing to tolerate very diverse standards of parenting, including the eccentric, the barely adequate and the inconsistent. It follows too that children will inevitably have both very different experiences of parenting and very unequal consequences flowing from it. It means that some children will experience disadvantage and harm, while others flourish in atmospheres of loving security and emotional stability. These are the consequences of our fallible humanity and it is not the provenance of the state to spare children all the consequences of defective parenting. In any event, it simply could not be done.”

[58]In relation to threshold I refer to the summary of the principles set out by Sir James Munby (then the President of the Family Division) in Re A (a Child)

[2015] EWFC 11

which was given by Aikens LJ in Re J (a Child)

[2015] EWCA Civ 222

: “56. The fundamental principles underlined by the President in Re A, which, as I say, are not new and are based on statute or the highest authority or both, can, I think, be summarised thus: i) In an adoption case, it is for the local authority to prove, on a balance of probabilities, the facts on which it relies and, if adoption is to be ordered, to demonstrate that "nothing else will do", when having regard to the overriding requirements of the child’s welfare. ii) If the local authority’s case on a factual issue is challenged, the local authority must adduce proper evidence to establish the fact it seeks to prove. If a local authority asserts that a parent "does not admit, recognise or acknowledge" that a matter of concern to the authority is the case, then if that matter of concern is put in issue, it is for the local authority to prove it is the case and, furthermore, that the matter of concern "has the significance attributed to it by the local authority". iii) Hearsay evidence about issues that appear in reports produced on behalf of the local authority, although admissible, has strict limitations if a parent challenges that hearsay evidence by giving contrary oral evidence at a hearing. If the local authority is unwilling or unable to produce a witness who can speak to the relevant matter by first hand evidence, it may find itself in "great, or indeed insuperable" difficulties in proving the fact or matter alleged by the local authority but which is challenged. iv) The formulation of "Threshold" issues and proposed findings of fact must be done with the utmost care and precision. The distinction between a fact and evidence alleged to prove a fact is fundamental and must be recognised. The document must identify the relevant facts which are sought to be proved. It can be cross-referenced to evidence relied on to prove the facts asserted but should not contain mere allegations ("he appears to have lied" etc.) v) It is for the local authority to prove that there is the necessary link between the facts upon which it relies and its case on Threshold. The local authority must demonstrate why certain facts, if proved, "justify the conclusion that the child has suffered or is at the risk of suffering significant harm" of the type asserted by the local authority." The local authority’s evidence and submissions must set out the arguments and explain explicitly why it is said that, in the particular case, the conclusion [that the child has suffered or is at the risk of suffering significant harm] indeed follows from the facts [proved]". vi) It is vital that local authorities, and, even more importantly, judges, bear in mind that nearly all parents will be imperfect in some way or other. The State will not take away the children of "those who commit crimes, abuse alcohol or drugs or suffer from physical or mental illness or disability, or who espouse antisocial, political or religious beliefs" simply because those facts are established. It must be demonstrated by the local authority, in the first place, that by reason of one or more of those facts, the child has suffered or is at risk of suffering significant harm [my emphasis]. Even if that is demonstrated, adoption will not be ordered unless it is demonstrated by the local authority that "nothing else will do" when having regard to the overriding requirements of the child’s welfare. The court must guard against "social engineering". vii) When a judge considers the evidence, he must take all of it into account and consider each piece of evidence in the context of all the other evidence, and, to use a metaphor, examine the canvas overall. Welfare

[59]So far as the law on welfare issues is concerned my paramount concern is the child’s welfare. In assessing whether to make an order I must take account of the matters set out in section 1(3) Children Act 1989 (welfare checklist). I must then have regard to the realistic options put forward taking a holistic and balanced as opposed to linear approach to them consistent with the guidance given in Re B-S (Children)

[2013] EWCA Civ 1146

[60]In reaching a final decision I must start from the position that the least interventionist alternative is to be preferred applying section 1(5) of the Children Act; I must not make an order unless I consider that doing so would be better for the child than making no order.

[61]I remind myself I must also have regard to Article 6 and 8 ECHR rights. Pursuant to Re B (Care: Interference with Family Life)

[2003] 2 FLR 813

I must not make a public law order unless I am satisfied it is both necessary and proportionate and no other less radical form of order would achieve the need to promote the welfare of the child.

[62]If I make a Care Order I must consider the permanence provisions of the care plan pursuant to section 31(3A) Children Act 1989 and the contact provisions pursuant to section 34(11) Children Act 1989.

Risk of Harm

[63]When assessing risk of harm I must ask (by reference to the summary in Re T (Children: Risk Assessment)

[2025] EWCA Civ 93

at paragraph 33):(1) What type of harm has arisen and might arise?

(2) How likely is it to arise?

(3) What would be the consequences for the child if it did?

(4) To what extent might the risks be reduced or managed?

(5) What other welfare considerations have to be taken into account?

(6) In consequence, which of the realistic plans best promotes the child’s welfare?

(7) If the preferred plan involves interference with the Article 8 rights of the child or of others, is that necessary and proportionate?

Non-Molestation Order

[64]The Local Authority invite me to make a Non-Molestation Order against the Father in reliance upon Re T (A Child)(Non-Molestation Order)

[2017] EWCA Civ 1889

from which the following extracts are taken (my emphasis): [7] The issue which brings the local authority before this court is their desire to obtain a non-molestation order for the benefit of this child so as to establish a clear power for the police to arrest the mother and/or Mr JM in the event of any breach of that order. … [10] Having apprehended that it was not possible to obtain a power of arrest to support any injunction granted upon their application under the inherent jurisdiction, the local authority facilitated an application by the child’s foster parents for a non-molestation order under the FLA 1996. It was, however, accepted before the judge that such an application was bound to fail. Save for the court’s power to grant an injunction within the existing ‘family proceedings’ under s 42(2)(b), the Family Court’s jurisdiction to make a non-molestation order is limited by s 42(2)(a) to an application for such an order which is ‘made … by a person who is associated with the respondent’. The existence of such an association is defined by s 62(3) and is confined to the 10 factual connections which are listed there. The circumstances of these foster carers cannot to be said to be ‘associated’ with the respondents within any of the 10 statutory categories and thus the foster carers’ application under the FLA 1996 was dismissed. [11] Although there was no other formal application under the FLA 1996 before the court, the local authority nevertheless submitted that the judge should make an order on the basis that the court was seised of ‘family proceedings’, namely the local authority application under the inherent jurisdiction, and that the child was ‘a relevant child’ for the purposes of s 42(2)(b), which gives a court power to make a non-molestation order if it considers that to do so would be for the benefit of the relevant child even though no application for such an order has been made. … [15] Although, in describing the issue, I have effectively referred to the relevant statutory material, it is helpful to set it out in full at this stage. [16] Section 42 of the FLA 1996 deals with ‘non-molestation orders’. By s 42(1) it is provided that:

‘In this Part a “non-molestation order” means an order containing either or both of the following provisions— (a) provision prohibiting a person (‘the respondent’) from molesting another person who is associated with the respondent; (b) provision prohibiting the respondent from molesting a relevant child.’ [17] The jurisdiction to make a non-molestation order is set out in s 42(2): ‘The court may make a non-molestation order— (a) if an application for the order has been made (whether in other family proceedings or without any other family proceedings being instituted) by a person who is associated with the respondent; or (b) if in any family proceedings to which the respondent is a party the court considers that the order should be made for the benefit of any other party to the proceedings or any relevant child even though no such application has been made.’ … [19] Section 42A of the FLA 1996 establishes the criminal offence of breaching a non-molestation order. A conviction for such an offence can be punished with a sentence of up to 5 years’ imprisonment. [20] Section 62(2) of the FLA 1996 defines ‘relevant child’ as follows: ‘In this Part “relevant child”, in relation to any proceedings under this Part means— (a) any child who is living with or might reasonably be expected to live with either party to the proceedings; (b) any child in relation to whom an order under the Adoption Act 1976, the Adoption and Children Act 2002 or the Children Act 1989 is in question in the proceedings; and (c) any other child whose interests the court considers relevant.’ … [24] The FLA 1996 does not contain any definition of ‘molestation’

. When called upon to do so, this court has consistently avoided giving a precise definition. In Horner v Horner

[1982] Fam 90

(1983) 4 FLR 50

, Ormerod LJ said, at 93 and 51G, respectively: ‘… I have no doubt that the word “molesting” … does not imply necessarily either violence or threats of violence. It applies to any conduct which can properly be regarded as such a degree of harassment as to call for the intervention of the court.’ [25] In like terms Sir Stephen Brown, President of the Family Division, in C v C (Non-Molestation

[65]The Local Authority have also invited me to make an order against the Father under section 91(14) Children Act 1989 which provides as follows: (14) On disposing of any application for an order under this Act, the court may (whether or not it makes any other order in response to the application) order that no application for an order under this Act of any specified kind may be made with respect to the child concerned by any person named in the order without leave of the court.

[66]The Children Act 1989 has been amended by s.67(3) Domestic Abuse Act 2021, which inserted s.91A into the Children Act 1989 (my emphasis): 91A. Section 91(14) orders: further provision(1) This section makes further provision about orders under section 91(14) (referred to in this section as "section 91(14) orders").

(2) The circumstances in which the court may make a section 91(14) order include, among others, where the court is satisfied that the making of an application for an order under this Act of a specified kind by any person who is to be named in the section 91(14) order would put— (a) the child concerned, or (b) another individual ("the relevant individual"), at risk of harm.

(3) In the case of a child or other individual who has reached the age of eighteen, the reference in subsection (2) to "harm" is to be read as a reference to ill-treatment or the impairment of physical or mental health.

(4) Where a person who is named in a section 91(14) order applies for leave to make an application of a specified kind, the court must, in determining whether to grant leave, consider whether there has been a material change of circumstances since the order was made.

(5) A section 91(14) order may be made by the court— (a) on an application made— (i) by the relevant individual; (ii) by or on behalf of the child concerned; (iii) by any other person who is a party to the application being disposed of by the court; (b) of its own motion.

(6) In this section, "the child concerned" means the child referred to in section 91(14)."

[67]PD12B and PD12Q contain guidance on the application of section 91(14) Children Act 1989. The Practice Directions indicate that orders under s.91(14) are available to prevent a person from making future applications under that Act without leave of the court and that section 91(14) leaves a discretion to the court to determine the circumstances in which an order should be made. The Practice Directions highlight that the circumstances in which such an order may be made are many and varied. Those circumstances include where an application would put the child concerned, or another individual, at risk of harm as provided in section 91A. In exercising the court's discretion, the Practice Directions make clear that the welfare of the child is paramount. With respect to the type of conduct that may justify an order, paragraph 13A.2 of PD12B provide as follows (my emphasis): 13A.2 These circumstances can also include where one party has made repeated and unreasonable applications; where a period of respite is needed following litigation; where a period of time is needed for certain actions to be taken for the protection of the child or other person; or where a person's conduct overall is such that an order is merited to protect the welfare of the child directly, or indirectly due to damaging effects on a parent carer. Such conduct could include harassment, or other oppressive or distressing behaviour beyond or within the proceedings including via social media and e-mail, and via third parties. Such conduct might also constitute domestic abuse. A future application could also be part of a pattern of coercive or controlling behaviour or other domestic abuse toward the victim, such that a section 91(14) order is also merited due to the risk of harm to the child or other individual.

[68]With respect to the procedure to be adopted when the court is considering making an order pursuant to section 91(14) of the Children Act 1989, Part 3 of PD 12Q states as follows: 3. Procedure 3.1 Under section 91A, a section 91(14) order may be made by the court of its own motion. If at any stage of the proceedings the court is considering making such an order of its own motion, it should record this fact in an order, together with any related directions (see, for example, paragraph 3.5). … 3.5 If an application is made, or the court is considering making an order of its own motion, the court should also consider what opportunity for representations should be provided to the parties. Courts should look to case law for further guidance and principles. 3.6 If the court decides to make a section 91(14) order, the court should give consideration as to the following matters:a. the duration of the order (see section 4);

b. whether the order should cover all or only certain types of application under the 1989 Act;

c. whether service of any subsequent application for leave should be prohibited until the court has made an initial determination of the merits of such an application (see section 6). Such an order delaying service would help to ensure that the very harm or other protective function that the order is intended to address, is not undermined; and

d. whether upon any subsequent application for leave, the court should make an initial determination of the merits of the application without an oral hearing (see section 6)."

[69]In Re A (Supervised Contact) (s 91(14))

[2021] EWCA Civ 1749

King LJ also observed that section 91(14) is not limited to cases where a party has made excessive applications, nor do the Re P guidelines say an order should only be made in exceptional circumstances (Re P (Section 91(14) Guidelines) (Residence and Religious Heritage)

[1999] 2 FLR 573

, CA) and at paragraph 40 (my emphasis), “… it seems to me that in the changed landscape described…above there is considerable scope for the greater use of this protective ﬁlter in the interests of children. Those interests are served by the making of an order under s 91(14) in an appropriate case not only to protect an individual child from the effects of endless unproductive applications and/or a campaign of harassment by the absent parent, but tangentially also to beneﬁt all those other children whose cases are delayed as court lists are clogged up…”.

Threshold

[70]The Local Authority rely upon lack of care (section 31(2)(b)(i) Children Act 1989). I will consider each of the allegations in turn. 1: Parents failed to engage with CETR Team

[71]The composite threshold records: [A527] a. A Child in Need Plan was initiated on 25th August 2022 following a referral from the Care Education and Treatment Review (CETR) Team, due to C’s complex needs. Various efforts were provided to support the family, but the parents were not attending booked appointments. [C16; medical records [B357/B360 and ongoing] M: Disputes. Not aware C was ever engaged with the CETR team. [A282]. F: Disputes. Does not recall LA involvement prior to January/February 2023. Disputes missed appointments. [C70-C71].

[72]Within the bundle there is a record of a strategy meeting on 7 February 2023. It refers to a referral from the CETR in relation to a sibling. It seems to erroneously record the sibling and C being made subject to a Child Protection Plan on 25 August 2022 although goes on to say “since the CIN plan”. The minutes of the meeting record: [F92] Since the CIN Plan, the family have not engaged with support for [] and C’s home school, referral to Emotional Health Academy for C, referral to Swings & Smiles, Referral to the GP to see C at home as she complained of poor eye sight and feeling weak. M says this is because of the children anxiety and their distress about attending appointments and about home visits being undertaken. In January 2023, C was admitted to Basingstoke Hospital as she had not eaten and drank for three days. She was discussed with home visit support from the Crisis/Home Treatment Team however they too have not been able to gain access to C to help her. C and [] have not been seen since November 2022 by the allocated social Worker due to cancelled home visits due to M stating that C is unable to face visits, or that she is unwell.

[73]The minutes record CAMHS attempting to see C the previous week but “M reported it wasn’t a good time” and when they later met “M reported C would rather meet via facetime” [F93].

[74]The Assistant Team Manager reported the social worker visiting every 15 days “but on the last two occasions she hasn’t been able to physically see the children or go upstairs, but Mum has given excuses for this” [F94].

[75]The report from the “Emotional Health Academy” was minuted as “F said he noticed there was a number of attempts to arrange an appointment for C via Mum and Mum informed the emotional health academy her phone wasn't working which did ring alarm bells around her potentially blocking communication” [F96].

[76]The Eating Disorders Team reported “A said Mum often calls in on the day to cancel the appointments and will report different excuses such as car issues, or her own health difficulties.” [F98] and the Risk Factors section of the minutes recorded under the heading “What are we worried about” a “lack of engagement from parents which is hindering [the] progression of the CIN plan and health plans for the children/disguised compliance”.

[77]On this contemporaneous evidence I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that: A Child in Need Plan was initiated on 25th August 2022, various efforts were made to support the family via CAMHS, the social work team, the Emotional Health Academy and the Eating Disorders Team but appointments could not be arranged or were cancelled by the Mother. 2: C not seen between November 2022 and 7 February 2023

[78]The composite threshold records: [A527] b. As at the Strategy discussion on 7th Feb 2023, C had not been seen since November 2022 due to cancelled home visits on the 20th December 2022 and 31st January 2023 by F and M. [C19; medical bundle B46] M: Accepts cancelling the visit in December 2022; not aware of visit on 31st January 2023 [A282]. F: Disputes. C was seen in hospital 1st -12th January 2023, and home visits by Rapid Response 17th January 2023, 26th January 2023, 2nd February 2023, 6th February 2023. [C71]

[79]The minutes of the strategy meeting indicate C was seen by CAMHS on 6 February 2023 [F93] and that C was admitted to Basingstoke hospital in January 2023 [F92]. The CAMHS note of a professionals meeting on 3 February 2023 records “Social Worker has not seen children since November, upstairs during visits to home and Mum reports they do not want to be seen. GP offered home visit to see C regarding eyesight, this was declined by Mum” [MED B51]. The CAMHS record indicates that C was an in patient at Basingstoke and North Hampshire Hospital from 31 December 2022 [MED B70]. Accordingly I find the following on the balance of probabilities: C was not seen between November 2022 and 31 December 2022. 3: Father stated he will not engage with CIN plan

[80]The composite threshold records: [A528] c. On 29th January 2024 F stated that they will no longer engage with the Local Authority and the Child in Need plan. [A262; C21] M: For F to respond to [A282]. F: Disputes. Gives context at [C71].

[81]The evidence of the social worker was: [C21] 1.21 A letter was received by the Local Authority’s Independent Reviewing Officer, Ms Tanya Blease on the 29th January 2024 from F, stating that F will no longer engage with the Local Authority and the Child in Need plan due to the stress and distress the Local Authority was causing on F and the family.

[82]Father says “this statement is a lie”. I have not seen the letter but the Father says the letter said: [C71] § The father noted:• ‘For absolute clarity, the withdrawal from engagement with social services is secondary to the Council no longer engaging with myself’.

• ‘If no response is received then I will consider C is no longer under Children’s services’

[83]I find the allegation proved on the balance of probabilities: On 29th January 2024 Father stated that the family will no longer engage with the Local Authority and the Child in Need plan 4: Parents failed to answer the door to social worker

[84]The composite threshold records: [A528] d. Following the Strategy discussion on the 15th March 2024, the allocated social worker and CAMHS Team attempted a joint home visit but there was no answer at the door. [C21-22; C52-3] M: Partially accepted. Door was not answered but this was not a pre-arranged visit and she would not have heard the door. [A283] F: Disputes any criticism. No advance notice given, F was not at home, and the family did not have to engage with social services. He engaged with the CP Chair. [C72]

[85]In her witness statement Ms Rosier said: [C22] 1.24 A visit was attempted to the family home following the strategy discussion on the 15th March 2024 by the newly allocated social worker, Ms Stephanie Rosier, CAMHS Service Manager, Mr Matthew Prouse and CAMHS Clinical Psychologist Mel (Surname unknown) However, there was no answer at the door. [C24] 1.33 Further attempts were made to engage C’s parents and visits were attempted on the 30th January, 8th, 15th and 21st March, 15th, 19th and 25th April, 2nd, 13th, 16th and 28th May, 12th, 20th and 26th June, 11th and 24th July 2024. However, on all these occasions, F denied the Social Worker entry to the home reporting C refused to see the social worker and there was also no response when knocking on the door during some of the unannounced visits.

[86]When Ms Rosier gave evidence she said that on some of the visits F expressed that she was trespassing on private property and did not have the right to attend and on other occasions that C did not wish to see her. Ms Rosier was appointed on 13 February 2024.

[87]On this evidence I conclude on the balance of probabilities: On 15 March 2024 the allocated social worker and CAMHS attempted a joint home visit but the door was not answered. There is no evidence that this was deliberate disengagement by the parents. On 8 and 21 March, 15, 19 and 25 April, 2, 13, 16 and 28 May, 12, 20 and 26 June, 11 and 24 July 2024 Father denied entry to the home either on grounds the social worker was trespassing or because he reported C did not want to see the social worker. 5: Father failed to acknowledge concerns of health and social care professionals

[88]The composite threshold records: [A528] e. During a video call with F on 26th March 2024 to discuss the S.47 enquiries, F declined visits to the home and refused to acknowledge the concerns of both Health and Social Care professionals as regards C’s health. [C22] M: For F to respond to [A283]. F: Disputes. Concerns not explained so nothing to refuse to acknowledge. Raises parallel clandestine CAMHS group. Family was exercising its legislative rights not to engage with social services following the failure of the LA to engage with the family. He had been attempting to engage with the CP Chair. [C72]

[89]The Local Authority evidence is: [C22] 1.26 A video call was arranged with F on the 26th March 2024 to discuss the S.47 enquiries. During the video call F declined visits to the home and was unable to recognise the concerns Health and Social Care professionals had for C. [C23] 1.30 A letter was sent to F and M on the 22nd April 2024, sharing information of the next S.47 Child Protection (Children Act 1989) Core Group meeting for the 25th April 2024. F attended the meeting. However, he chose not to participate or engage with professionals.

[90]Ms Rosier gave oral evidence that she chaired the meeting on 25 April 2025 and the note is accurate.

[91]The Father’s response is: [C72] § Social services stated there were ‘concerns’, but refused to explain what the, alleged, events were. … § The family raised concerns social services were involved with a parallel (clandestine) CAMHS group and the family was not aware of what was being discussed. The Council declined to engage with this discussion and did not confirm or deny social services involvement in a separate CAMHS group. § The family noted, as C was under a Child in Need process, the family was exercising its legislative rights not to engage with social services following the failure of the Council to engage with the family. … § It is noted, social services had no right to visit the family home without permission. § The father has never denied C has significant medical issues that were having a significant effect on her daily activities. § The father did not refuse to acknowledge any concerns, as social services declined to say what the concerns were. There was nothing to refuse.

[92]The Father has not filed a final statement and did not cross-examine Ms Rosier or Ms Arnold (having been removed from the hearing for indicating he was recording and refusing to desist from doing so). On the balance of probabilities I make the following findings which are consistent with the Father’s admission that “the family was exercising its legislative rights not to engage”: On 26 March 2024 the Father informed the Local Authority in a video meeting he would not engage with the Local Authority under the Child in Need plan and informed the Local Authority they had no right to visit the family home without permission. At the core group meeting on 25 April 2024 the Father did not participate. 6: Father failed to engage with Care Education and Treatment Review

[93]The composite threshold records: [A528] f. On 10th April 2024, the CAMHS Team recommended a Care Education and Treatment Review for C as a prerequisite to having a LDA (Learning Disability and Autism) ‘hospital-at-home’. However, F advised he did not consent to West Berkshire Children’s Services or the Berkshire Keyworking Team to attend his home. (CAO bundle [F66]; medical bundle [B291-3], [B295], [C23]) M: For F to respond to [A283]. F: Disputes. Says C had decided she no longer wished to engage with keyworking, and family agreed to a C(E)TR without involvement of social services and keyworking. Says C was eligible to access Tier 4 at home treatment without a C(E)TR. Further context given. [C73]

[94]The Keyworking Team chronology records receiving an email from the Father on 10 April 2024 “regarding withdrawal of consent for Key Working Team” [CAO F66]. The CAMHS record of a professionals meeting on 1 May 2024 records: [MED B292] Alice reported that the family do not want an inpatient admission for C but have agreed to accessing a Tier 4 hospital at home resource such as the new Learning Disability and Autism (LDA) Hospital at Home service. However, a CETR is needed to access this service, and the family have not given consent for social care or keyworking to be involved with a CETR process so this cannot be organised yet.

[95]The reference to “Alice” is to a member of the CAMHS team. On this primary evidence I accept the Local Authority allegation on the balance of probabilities: On 10 April 2024, the CAMHS Team recommended a Care Education and Treatment Review for C as a prerequisite to having a LDA (Learning Disability and Autism) ‘hospital-at-home’. F did not consent to West Berkshire Children’s Services or the Berkshire Keyworking Team being involved. 7: Father withdrew consent to Keyworking Team support for C

[96]The composite threshold records: [A528] g. On [or around] 17th April 2024, F withdrew his consent for support for C from the Berkshire Keyworking Team, thereby resulting in and/or contributing to the deterioration in C’s health. (CAO bundle [F55] onwards) M: For F to respond to [A283]. F: Disputes. C decided she no longer wished to continue with the keyworking service. The service had not been of any value. [C73]

[97]The evidence above supports the allegation of withdrawal of consent but there is no evidence this directly or indirectly led to a deterioration in C’s health. The allegation is not proved on the balance of probabilities. 8: Father requested face to face GP visits cease

[98]The composite threshold records: [A529] h. During a face to face with C by the GP on 25th April 2024, [GP] observed ‘some deterioration in the last visit’, which was on 21st March 2024. Since the 25th April 2024 visit, F requested the GP to stop face to face visits. ([C25]; CAO bundle [F12], [F48]; medical bundle [C8]) M: For F to respond to [A283]. F: Disputes. GP had previously noted a dramatic improvement Jan – March, at a time when the family was supporting C’s decision not to engage with social services, which allowed her to improve. GP simply stated C appeared more subdued in April. He never requested GP stop visiting in person. [C74]

[99]The GP record for 25 April 2024 records “some deterioration in condition since last visit” [MED C8]. The allegation that F requested an end to face to face visits is not evidenced in any primary document. The Core Group meeting minutes for 6 June 2024 record the GP saying she had not been able to see C for 6 weeks but was due to visit that day and reported that prior to the visit on 25 April 2024 C “had made a vast improvements [sic]” [CAO F48]. Accordingly, save that “some deterioration” was noted on 25 April 2024, I do not find the allegation proved. 9: C’s health deteriorating due to failure of parents to engage

[100]The composite threshold records: [A529] i. During a Core Group meeting on 6th June 2024, GP reported further deterioration in C’s condition since her last visit on 25th April. C’s health, as reported by her GP, has been deteriorating since March 2024, which is attributable to the parents’ persistent failure to engage and refusal to allow professionals access to C. (CAO bundle [F40]; medical bundle [C7-8]) M: Accepted. Clarifies that GP noted the deterioration and stated it was a ‘bad day’ for C. [A283-4] F: Disputes. Notes context and gives explanation. Says family continued to engage with medical services and were often pushing to progress additional care. Says only service family did not engage with was social services. Says the subsequent deterioration related to additional pressure social services having on C and how the parallel (clandestine) CAMHS group was interfering with C accessing Tier 4 at home treatment. [C74-C75]

[101]The minutes of the meeting record: [CAO F48] [GP] said C wasn't feeling as good at their last visit and there had been a bit of a deterioration in C’s condition since she had last visited. [GP] said at her visit before last C presented as quite perky, sitting and engaging well. [GP] said however at her last visit C wasn't as well, but she does vary from time to time. … Mother said the use of certain words can make someone worried, but it was a just bad day for C. [GP] said she would agree…

[102]I have not found any evidence that the deterioration reported was “attributable to the parents’ persistent failure to engage” as alleged. Accordingly, save as noted above, there was noted to have been some deterioration between March and April 2024 which I do not consider relevant to threshold and I do not find the allegation proved. 10: Parents did not agree assessments of C and themselves in pre-proceedings

[103]The composite threshold records: [A529] j. During the pre-proceedings meeting on 14th June 2024, F and M further reiterated that they do not agree to any proposed assessments of C and of themselves. [C27] M: Accepted. Assessments proposed would have been detrimental to C’s mental health. [A284] F: Context needed. Family were waiting for expected involvement of Tier 4 at home services and therefore did not appear reasonable to engage other individuals to assess C for reasons set out. LA did not provide any reasons to support the need for additional assessments. [C75-76]

[104]Ms Rosier’s oral evidence was that although she had no direct recollection of the discussion about assessments at the PLO meeting “we would discuss assessments, what they mean and what they would look like”. I accept that evidence on the balance of probabilities. That is in part the point of the pre-proceedings meeting, it would be extraordinary if the reasons for assessment, essentially the reason for invoking the pre-proceedings process, was not given. In essence though the allegation is admitted and I find: During the pre-proceedings meeting on 14 June 2024, the parents stated that they did not agree to any proposed assessments of C and of themselves. 11: Father declined face to face treatment for C for Tier 4 referral

[105]The composite threshold records: [A530] k. On 5th July 2024, Dr [] advised that a referral for Tier 4 input and the LDA (Learning Disabilities and Autism) hospital at home would require face to face treatment. F declined the service. (Medical bundle [B260]; [J12]) M: For F to respond to [A284]. F: Disputed. The family made a reasonable adjustment request which was refused by the LDA at home service. See context and detail at [C76-77].

[106]The CAMHS record for 5 July 2024 records: [MED B260] The F1 referral will be closed because the family are not consenting to a tier 4 offer which is in person, it is not a virtual offer. Need full consent to an in person tier 4 service for referral to be taken forward.

[107]On that primary evidence I find the allegation proved, although the note refers to “the family” not consenting the allegation is pleaded against the Father and I go no further than that: A tier 4 hospital at home bed referral was closed around 5 July 2024 because the Father declined face to face treatment. 12: Child Assessment Order granted on 16 August 2024

[108]The composite threshold records: [A530] l. On the 16th August 2024 [date corrected], the court granted a Child Assessment Order under S43 of the Children Act 1989; by virtue of which determined that the local authority has reasonable cause to suspect that C is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm, and an assessment of the state of C’s health and development is required and it is unlikely that such an assessment will be made, or will be satisfactory, in the absence of an order. (CAO bundle [B16]) M: Accepted. [A284] F: Contains inaccurate information and in particular seeks to challenge why there was delay post decision to apply for a CAO. This was a deliberate attempt by the LA to disadvantage the family. [C77]

[109]This is a matter of court record. The order was made by HHJ Greenfield on the grounds alleged [CAO B17]. I find the allegation proved: On 16 August 2024 the court was satisfied that: (a). The local authority has reasonable cause to suspect that C is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm; (b). An assessment of the state of C’s health and development is required to enable the local authority to determine whether or not C is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm; and (c). It is unlikely that such an assessment will be made, or will be satisfactory, in the absence of a child assessment order under section 43 Children Act 1989. 13: Father applied for C to be discharged from mental health section

[110]The composite threshold records: [A530] m. On or around 30th August 2024, F applied for C to be discharged from hospital where she [was] receiving ongoing assessment and treatment by the mental health team. C was likely to suffer significant harm if discharged from hospital prematurely. [J1-7]; [J9-J16] M: For F to respond to [A284]. F: Disputed. Says C applied to challenge the section with her own solicitor and F was not involved. [C77-C78]

[111]The in-patient Responsible Clinician’s report (form T131) prepared for the First Tier Tribunal confirmed detention required by reason of a mental health disorder and in relation to assessment recorded: [J3] A Psychology assessment is taking place and the aim is to undertake treatment for anxiety using exposure and response prevention therapy with C to treat her OCD.

[112]It recorded detention was justified or necessary in the interests of C’s health or safety and if discharged she would likely act in a manner dangerous to herself [J5].

[113]Whilst there is evidence that discharge prematurely would not have been in C’s welfare interest (and the application was in fact refused) there is no evidence that the Father applied for the discharge as opposed to C. I do not find the allegation proved. 14: Parents withdrew C from school limiting her educational opportunities

[114]The composite threshold records: [A530] a. C has not received any formal education from the age of 7 years old, when she was in year 3 of [] Primary School, when F and M made the decision to Electively Home Educate her but declined support offered by the Elective Home Education Department and cancelled appointments with the Emotional Health Academy [J10]; [C18-19]; [F6-8]. Added: This has limited her educational opportunities and affected her opportunities for peer relationships. [E515-516] M: Partially accepted. M cannot recall being offered support by the EHE department or the Emotional Health Academy or cancelling appointments with them. [A285] F: M decided to home educate and C received education from M. No concerns raised by the EHE department after regular assessments. [C78]

[115]There is a short report from the Elective Home Education service at [F6]. It records full engagement, no concerns about the education being provided and it concluded: [F8] Since C has become EHE, her parents have engaged with the EHE Officer, current and former post holder, and provided evidence that a suitable education was in place, which has resulted in the education review being annually. If there are any safeguarding concerns during reviews the EHE Officer refers to CAAS. In this case no concerns were present during the review meetings. C was seen and evidence of the education was provided, parents were open and honest about C’s previous hospital admissions and her mental health.

[116]I think the allegation as originally drafted confuses the acronym EHE with “Emotional Health Academy” and there is no evidence of cancelled appointments with the Elective Home Education service or of declined support.

[117]However, as amended there is more merit. The GOSH report records: [E515-E516] 6.21 Additionally, C has had limited opportunities to learn about other settings; she was home educated from the age of seven and although she regularly engaged in home education groups and had some playdates in other people’s homes before she became unwell, her day-to-day experience has been in her home with her family. This has also affected her opportunities for peer relationships, later exacerbated by becoming unwell…

[118]When M gave oral evidence she did not accept the allegation. In relation to peer relationships she said “C was mixing in home ed groups before Covid but not since”. I find the allegation proved to this more limited extent: C has been home educated from age 7. C has had limited opportunities to learn about other settings; she was home educated from the age of seven and although she regularly engaged in home education groups and had some playdates in other people’s homes before she became unwell, her day-to-day experience has been in her home with her family. This has also affected her opportunities for peer relationships. 15: C did not leave home between January 2023 and August 2024

[119]The composite threshold records: [A531] b. Prior to being sectioned under Section 2 of the Mental Health Act on 21st August 2024, the last time C left the family home was in January 2023, where she was admitted to Basingstoke hospital because she had not eaten, urinated or drank fluids for three days. (SW statements and chronology C51 onwards; Medical bundle [A53-4; A79; A90; A106; C32]) (NB. This is re-worded from the interim.) M: Disputed. C went to Basingstoke hospital in March 2023, M had sought advice from the GP and followed the advice to take C to hospital. [A285] F: Disputed. C was admitted to Basingstoke hospital in March 2023. Says in December 2022 C’s mental health rapidly deteriorated, M was in regular contact with primary care and took C to hospital when advised. Says C did not go 3 days without eating or drinking. Her behaviour of refusing to go to the toilet continued in hospital. [C78-79]

[120]A GP record for 30 December 2022 records “hardly eating” [MED A79].

[121]The admission record from Basingstoke hospital dated 1 January 2023 records: [MED A106] Mum reports Pt had only 200ml of water and passed urine once in 72 hours

[122]The Safeguarding Children Liaison form from Basingstoke hospital dated 3 January 2023 records: [MED A54] Admitted to the ward with increased OCD symptoms. Refusing food or drink for 4 days at home…

[123]The discharge summary of 12 January 2023 records: [MED A90] C was admitted with reduced oral intake on a background of possible OCD and autism. She presented after 4 days of food and ﬂuid refusal, and was having around 200ml of water a day. C’s symptoms of OCD have been escalating at home since 25/12/22, with no obvious trigger. She doesn't like going to the toilet and washes her hands for 4 hours after using the bathroom, and so she had been refusing food and drink to prevent going to the bathroom.

[124]In oral evidence the Mother accepted it was around 3 days that C had not eaten for. On that and the contemporaneous evidence I find that: On 1 January 2023 C was admitted to hospital with a history of limited fluid and no food intake in the previous 72 hours.

[125]The CAMHS record for 27 March 2023 records C not leaving the house “since early 2020 (apart from two hospital admissions)” [MED B19]. The GP record for 4 April 2023 records a call to the Mother referencing “was in Basingstoke hospital earlier this year” [MED C28] which suggests a single visit some time before. However, there is a discharge summary dated 17 February 2023 from Basingstoke hospital recorded a 3 day admission with fever, enuresis and abdominal pain [MED A88]. On balance therefore I find that: C did not leave the family home between discharge from Basingstoke Hospital in January 2023 and being sectioned under the Mental Health Act in August 2024 save for a 3 day admission to Basingstoke Hospital between 15 and 17 February 2023. 16: Crisis/Home Treatment Team not able to access C

[126]The composite threshold records: [A531] c. C remained in hospital for several weeks in January 2023, and was reluctantly discharged by medical professionals based on the nature of her illness. It was agreed C could be discharged with at-home visit support from the Crisis/Home Treatment Team. However, the Crisis/Home treatment Team were unable to gain access to C due to cancellations of home visits. (Medical bundle [A89]; [B51-61]). M: Accepted save that C spent 13 days in hospital and was not reluctantly discharged. C’s engagement with the team ceased and M tried to encourage C to re-engage with them. [A285]. F: Disputed. Says the hospital was ready to discharge C much earlier than when she went home, and C and M requested she stay in longer than needed. Says only one appointment was cancelled by the family. [C79]

[127]There is no suggestion in the relevant discharge summary of a reluctant discharge [MED A90]. A home visit was cancelled by the Mother on 23 January 2023 because C was asleep [MED B59], it was rescheduled for 26 January 2023 and went ahead [MED B57], the next visit due on 31 January 2023 was cancelled as the Mother said she had been sick [MED B56], the next meeting was to have been on 2 February 2023 [MED B57] but the Mother messaged that day as she had been trying to wake C for 40 minutes [MED B53], the meeting went ahead although C was not seen [MED B53]. Accordingly I find: Following discharge from Basingstoke Hospital two meetings with CAMHS were cancelled by the Mother before 2 February 2023. 17: Mother has caused harm to C

[128]The composite threshold records: [A531] a. Mother’s ways of understanding C and interacting with her have caused harm to C’s development. [E522]

[129]Denied by Mother.

[130]The GOSH report concludes: [E522] 6.38 However, we are concerned about her mother’s ways of understanding C and interacting with her which, in our view, are causing harm to C’s development. 6.39 The central aspects of this, in our view, are M’s beliefs about C’s vulnerability and her corresponding belief that she is the only person who is truly able to help C.

[131]I have considered the GOSH report in much greater detail when considering welfare below. On the evidence set out, in particular under the heading “Capability of parents: Mother”, I make this finding on the balance of probabilities: Mother’s ways of understanding C and interacting with her have caused harm to C’s development. 18: Father has undermined C’s ability to trust professionals

[132]The composite threshold records: [A531] b. Father’s approach to professionals has undermined C’s own ability to trust professionals in supportive roles. [E525]

[133]The GOSH report concludes: [E525] 6.51 Whilst there are contested facts set out by F, his relationship with the local authority has demonstrably broken down, and we are concerned that the focus on such matters as trespass by the local authority and a “Clandestine CAMHS” will firstly have stood in the way of engagement and secondly will have been very likely to undermine C’s own ability to trust professionals in supportive roles.

[134]As above, I have considered the GOSH report in much greater detail when considering welfare below. On the evidence set out, in particular under the heading “Capability of parents: Father”, I make the following finding: Father’s approach to professionals has undermined C’s own ability to trust professionals in supportive roles. 19: Father’s method of communicating C’s needs has affected C’s confidence

[135]The composite threshold records: [A531] Father’s method of communicating C’s needs to her has affected C’s confidence in her own abilities. [E525]

[136]The GOSH report concludes: [E525] 6.52 In the documents that F submitted to us, he refers to C’s “disability” and “processing deficits” (e.g. p6 of the Urgent Application dated 3.10.2024). While C has been diagnosed with autism, and we have not been able to discuss this terminology with F, we are concerned about the way in which this may communicate to C a sense of fixed deficits, thereby affecting confidence in her own abilities.

[137]This evidence is insufficient to reach the conclusion sought on the balance of probabilities.

Conclusions

[138]Particularly by reference to my findings on allegations 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 15 and 16 I find that the first limb of the threshold test in section 31(2) is made out on the balance of probabilities. Whilst I do not find that C’s presentation was fundamentally caused by the parents I am satisfied its extent has been because it has left C less able to access support to aid recovery.

Welfare

[139]I now turn now to the considerations under section 1(3) Children Act 1989

Wishes and feelings

[140]The Guardian has set out her engagement with C in this way; it is important to set this out because the Guardian’s position does not match that of C. C’s solicitor has consistently assessed her as lacking capacity to conduct this litigation and that is supported by an assessment by GOSH (7 February 2025 [E348]): [E889] Engagement with C has been intermittent: I have met with C via videocall on the 28th January 2024 [sic in fact it was 28 January 2025] as an introduction and to discuss her views regarding future placements. I have also been able to meet C in person on the 25th February, 29th April and 25th June 2025. At these times C has engaged really well with me and gave me the opportunity to explain the court process and gather her views regarding her placement, education, support and her wishes and feelings for the future. C has refused visits on the 10th February, 6th June and 21st July 2025. C has my telephone number and email address and has been provided with the opportunity to communicate with me throughout proceedings.

[141]On her wishes the Guardian reported: [E890] C has continually reported her desire to return to her parents’ care, this relates to it feeling like home and her wanting to spend time with her parents, siblings and pets. Additionally, C does not like living at [placement], does not feel comfortable with the staff who she does not feel are invested in her. C feels that she would better progress in terms of her mental health and education if she were living in her family home.

[142]C tells me in her letter that she feels sad all the time and is only happy when with her family but the time with them is too short. She tells me she will return home when she turns 18 and does not feel she is getting the right support in placement and wants her dog to be with her. She wants to either return home or live with A and her husband. The letter could not be clearer to me; her views are obviously strongly held and given her age I give them significant weight. Physical, emotional, educational needs and age, sex and

Background

[143]The GOSH report summarises C’s presentation and background in this way: [E455-6] 1.1 C is a 16-year-old girl who is the youngest of five siblings, all of whom have been diagnosed with autism. The two eldest siblings have now left home but the next two, [], are still living at home. Both have had their own mental health difficulties and [] has had an admission for an eating disorder. C was home schooled from Year 2. In 2024 she was diagnosed with autism. In the same year she was admitted to [] under Section 2 of the Mental Health Act due to severe obsessive-compulsive disorder and dependence on her mother for almost all aspects of her self-care, including being fed by her mother, who had to wash her hands multiple times first. … 1.4…In our report we refer to a number of factors that are likely to have impacted on C’s development, which complicate the assessment of autism, including her parents’ strong beliefs about her vulnerability, limited opportunity for socialising and her siblings’ and parents’ own difficulties, which will have reduced access to more positive developmental opportunities. 1.5 C’s OCD symptoms and ability to tend to her own self-care have improved dramatically since the admission to [psychiatric unit]. The rapidity of this improvement suggests that the symptoms developed and were maintained in the interactions with her mother…Our assessment of her attachment style indicates a high level of insecurity: she has not developed an internalised sense of security that would enable her to separate safely from her mother.

[144]On admission to the psychiatric unit in August 2024 GOSH report her presentation as: [E466] 5.12 On admission, C was in a poor condition. She appeared anxious and depressed and was in a state of self-neglect. She appeared to use avoidance and self-isolation as her default ways of coping and had difficulty engaging and communicating with staff, who, as a result, were unsure what their role would be.

[145]It developed in this way: [E466] 5.17 The OCD symptoms quite rapidly improved. She had not been able to shower but quite promptly became able to do this without support. Although she made rapid progress, staff have noticed a tendency for C to retreat when stressed or if she perceives a demand on her. She has continued to show a strong wish for her mother to do things for her. She has very little willingness to leave the unit without her mother… [E468] 5.26 After the court made it clear that C could not go home, there was a decline in her engagement including with school. This seemed in keeping with her tendency to withdraw when unhappy about something.

[146]In the chronology C then moved to the first residential placement and GOSH report increasing refusal to attend education and spending more time in her room than “downstairs” [E469].

[147]The GOSH report summarises her diagnoses: [E509] 6.1 C is a 16-year-old young person with pre-existing diagnoses of autism, Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD), depression, anxiety and Avoidant/Restrictive Food Intake Disorder (ARFID). C has also been diagnosed with emetophobia; she described her fear of vomiting within her OCD symptoms. C is described in some of the CAMHS documentation as having demand avoidance. … [E510] 6.4 As described above, C has a significant history of mental health difficulties, which at their most distressing resulted in her being bedbound in her bedroom at home, with her mother managing her self-care needs and feeding her by hand. These difficulties had significant physical health implications, including urinary retention and potential muscle wastage, and led to a physical health admission in January 2023 due to her not eating or drinking. C’s current mental health is much improved with respect to her OCD symptoms: she is able to manage her own self-care needs, including around toileting and showering, she can cook herself simple meals and is eating well. Placement staff have not noticed any ritualised behaviour around hand washing or other tasks, although C continues to wear gloves. … [E511] 6.9 Considering C’s attachment, in the CAI C gave an idealised and (positively) one-sided view of her parents, particularly of her mother, and showed limited emotional openness. This is indicative of an anxious avoidant attachment style, although C also shows a high level of preoccupation about needing her mother near her, particularly to manage anxious thoughts. C does not appear to have an internalised sense of safety, suggesting a high level of attachment insecurity that will perpetuate behaviours (including OCD rituals) that maintain proximity to her mother. C’s reliance on her mother being physically present is reminiscent of a very much younger child or infant; C seems to have no belief that she can cope with challenging feelings or experiences independently from her parents. [E513] 6.14 C appears to engender support that often fragilises her: this is evident in her parents’ attempts to support her as we will expand on below but also in professional carefulness even during this assessment process, for example indicating she would not manage an appointment at Great Ormond Street Hospital, or placement staff accepting her decision to stay in her room at our last appointment. These were for good reasons, but our experience of C during the assessment was that she has many strengths and resilience factors: she has already developed relationships with some placement staff; she has fairly good general functioning and appears bright and cognitively able; she has some social strengths despite her autism diagnosis; she is easy to build a rapport with; she has positive interests and a sense of her own future; she has a strong sense of justice and what is right.

[148]Their evidence on treatment needs was: [E521] 6.33 In terms of C’s therapeutic needs, we understand she, and her wider network, are currently being well supported by CAMHS. C will need ongoing individual intervention around her anxiety and mood, as well as a therapeutic space to explore her identity, interests and relationships. C is an older adolescent and a central task of adolescence is individuation, including renegotiating family relationships and developing closer peer relationships.

[149]In her updating statement Ms Arnold says that she observed a decline in C’s wellbeing in April 2025 after C had left the placement apparently to meet with strangers with an intention of falling pregnant, but “This has changed, and C is now going to Exceed to look after her rats, and she is engaging well with another young person in the placement”.

[150]Ms Laulik-Walters summarises the care arrangements in the former placement (and I assume this continues in the associated new placement) in this way: [E797] 4.12 Currently, there is a tightly knit professional network in place between the Social Work team, CAMHS and [placement] staff. CAMHS take a multi-faceted approach to the work. This includes holding weekly network meetings with all professionals (including education), support sessions with staff at [placement] regarding how best to work with C and weekly meetings with M; having weekly face to face meetings with C in placement; and a psychiatric team overseeing her medication and reviewing her progress.

[151]She went on to report: [E815] I absolutely acknowledge and agree that there have been some occasions where communication has not been good enough and that contact has not been arranged in a timely manner and I recognise that any such issues will impact a parents view of the care their child is receiving. Overarchingly, however, there is a clear multidisciplinary plan of support around C and she is making progress within this.

[152]The Guardian’s oral evidence was: C is a very bright young girl, she has clear plans for her future, wants to be independent, loves art, she really loves her family, one of her biggest loves is her pets, she loves animals and finds them very therapeutic, I think she is struggling in care, feels trapped, feels like her life is out of control. She has a good sense of humour, is very able, it is very frustrating for her.

Likely effect of change in circumstances

[153]Ms Laulik-Walters says: [E816] C has also been clear that her wish is to return to her family at this stage. I acknowledge that both [C and M will] be unhappy with the outcome of this assessment…

[154]She was asked to consider the effect of a Care Order further in cross-examination and said “I think it’s likely C will struggle, it could impact her mental health negatively, increase her OCD, might see a regression, alternatively when she knows what is happening and has some certainty it may help her to settle”.

[155]Regrettably, on day 1 of the final hearing I was told the placement had received a closure notice from Ofsted, the placement not being registered with Ofsted. It was necessary for C to move placement within 48 hours to another, short term but Ofsted registered, placement within the same care home group. This is likely to have been highly damaging for C: first it was a move of placement, second it was during the course of the final hearing and third because of the unexpected urgency. The care plan is for her to move back to the original placement after it becomes registered. That has the potential for further emotional harm to C.

[156]Ms Laulik-Walters was asked to think about the risks to C of a final care order contrary to her wishes. She accepted there was a risk she “may vote with her feet”. The consequences for C may be repeat DOLS applications or an unplanned breakdown in the care plan. Both present risks to C’s emotional wellbeing. She asserted that C “has to be involved in the care plan” to mitigate the risk. I took her to mean C to be informed, supported and encouraged to understand the benefits.

[157]Dr Prentice’s evidence was that a Care Order and the care plan, being contrary to C’s wishes, may lead to possible “temporary regression” with C isolating herself more and a lowering of C’s mood.

[158]The Mother’s evidence was that the making of Care Order would have a hugely negative impact on C, she thought she would not want to continue living, she could see that stalling her progress or causing regression, see her “just giving up and losing the will and hope”.

[159]The Guardian’s evidence was “she will be very unhappy” but it is difficult to know how things will go; she said that “the progress in care is positive and when she has certainty around the care plan I hope she will engage more”. Capability of parents: Mother Drug and alcohol testing

Capability of parents: Mother

[160]The Local Authority case summary summarises the testing evidence of the Mother in this way:a. M’s drug and alcohol test report at [E312] dated 11.12.24 showing: i. Use of codeine within the approximate time period mid August 2024 to mid November 2024; ii. Peth result suggesting excessive alcohol consumption within the time period covered by the hair with a reduction in alcohol consumption for at least a month prior to sample collection.

b. M’s additional alcohol test report at [E333] dated 19.12.24: results suggestive of chronic and excessive alcohol consumption within the approximate time period mid August 2024 to mid November 2024.

c. M’s replacement testing report at [E372] dated 11.12.24: results suggestive of chronic and excessive alcohol consumption within the approximate time period mid May 2024 to mid November 2024.

d. M’s drug and alcohol test report at [E398] dated 27.02.25: i. Evidence to suggest use of alcohol but not to a chronic excessive level within time period which is approximately 19.11.24 to 17.02.25. ii. Peth consistent with abstinence or irregular low alcohol consumption by M within approximate month prior to sample collection.

[161]Recent alcohol testing dated 21 July 2025 indicates no chronic or excessive consumption from January to June 2025 and abstinence (as the Mother says) or low alcohol consumption in the month to 14 July 2025 [E874].

Psychiatric assessment

[162]The Local Authority case summary in relation Dr Musters’ assessment sets out the following (I have added the relevant bundle references and the summary accords with my reading of the report): f. Psychiatric assessment of M dated 22.03.25 completed by Dr Musters. Dr Musters records that M has suffered from a chronic depressive illness, of mild or moderate severity, and this has been treated with antidepressants from her GP since 2012. She has been advised to have psychological (‘talking’) therapy but has not engaged [E440]. Since she started taking codeine in 2012 she has never not been prescribed opioid painkillers, and stronger opioids have successively been added. This is despite her medical records being unclear about why she experiences so much pain and it not being clear what all of the painkillers are treating [E442]. It is very likely that she has a physical, biochemical dependence on opioids [E442-3]. M recognises she has used alcohol as a coping mechanism and using opioids in this way, even unintentionally, would be consistent [E443]. Dr Musters was concerned M may be exceeding legal limits to blood concentrations when driving at her current prescribed doses [E444]. Dr Musters discusses whether M’s abstinence from alcohol will be maintained at [E445]. Dr Musters noted her psychological complexity and his overall impression of someone who tends to avoid experiencing painful emotions [E446]. Relationship with

Father

[163]Interestingly, the Mother’s original position for this hearing demonstrated a shift from her position to Dr Musters in that he recorded: [E448] While she was careful to emphasise that they [that is M and F] are not the same person and should not be considered as one in these proceedings, she was nevertheless clear that in the important decisions in respect of C, they have been collaborative and broadly in agreement. She did not attempt to lay any blame at his feet…

[164]In cross-examination, Ms Laulik-Walters was asked about the Father’s behaviour (becoming annoyed, animated, raising his voice, shouting when disagreeing with the GOSH report) and how that may impact on C. She thought C may become dismissive of professionals if she saw her father’s response and did not consider the Mother had the capacity to prevent that. When Ms Rosier gave evidence she agreed the PLO meeting on 14 June 2024 lasted 2 hours but “nothing was really accomplished” and that the Review Child Protection Conference on 9 July 2024 was “terminated because the Father was so focused on his needs”. I address this further below as it touches on the Father’s capacity but in relation to the Mother Ms Rosier was asked if she had demonstrated an ability to “pull the Father back to talking about C’s needs”; she said the Mother had not and she had never seen her to challenge or disagree with the Father in meetings. Ms Arnold later agreed.

[165]The Mother’s position has changed several times. Earlier in proceedings the Mother was expressing a desire to leave the family home and for C to live with her elsewhere and Ms Laulik-Walters in her final assessment reported that at the time of the interim assessment the Mother was keen to move out but at the time of the final assessment said she “is not currently looking to move” and “She feels that she and F both bring their “own strengths” and “it makes sense for them both to remain present to support C together” [E787-E788]. That was her position in her witness statement dated just two weeks before the commencement of the final hearing [C299/28], yet in her position statement she reverted to her previous view and ultimately after hearing all the evidence she adopted the position set out above of not opposing a Care Order.

[166]When she gave oral evidence the Mother set out a little more of her thinking. She said the reason for the change indicated in her witness statement was that assistance offered by her parents was withdrawn and she did not have the finances to fund her moving out; but her intention now is to put the family home on the market when these proceedings conclude, this will realise her share of the capital. She would then find alternative accommodation for her, C and C’s two adult siblings currently living at home. In the meantime she said the Father would move out. That does not accord with her witness statement which, as above, was of there being strength in her and the Father parenting together. She was asked about that on behalf of the Guardian and gave a very unsatisfactory explanation that her position statement is what she would have wanted to say in her witness statement but she had not finished re-writing the statement by the time it had to be filed and served and she felt under time pressure. It was put to her that in fact what was in her statement is what she told Ms Laulik-Walters so there had really been no time pressure.

[167]The Mother was also cross-examined on the practicalities of such a plan. She thought it was realistic for her to care for C’s adult siblings, notwithstanding she reported to GOSH that one of those siblings had “much higher” needs than C [E495/5.195]. She was asked if the Father had agreed to move out and said she did not have anything in writing. She was asked where he would go and she said to the Paternal Grandmother but did not know if she had agreed that plan. She was asked what would happen if the Father in fact came back, given that he was a co-owner of the home, in particular if he then did not let social workers see C, as has occurred in the past. She said there would be rules and boundaries and she said she would seek help from the Local Authority and the police. I said to her I had not seen evidence of that in the bundle and she said she had stood up against the Father “just not in front of people”. Of course I have to decide the case on the evidence presented. In particular, it was put to her that when the Father was given a letter indicating a change in contact arrangements for the Father on 8 August 2025 he was frustrated, he said in front of C he was not going to have contact in a contact centre and clung on to C saying “you might never see me again, it might be the last time you see me”. She agreed that happened, she said it was “disgraceful” behaviour by him, “hurtful” and would make C feel vulnerable. She also agreed, and this is the important bit in relation to C returning home, she did not do anything to stop it although said that was a judgment call in the moment so as not to inflame the situation. I could accept that evidence if that was the only example of the Mother not standing up to the Father, but it is not. In the course of her evidence other points were considered: a) In the minutes of the PLO meeting of 14 June 2024 at [PP4] it is recorded that the Mother said “they are not in disagreement with each other. They agree with how C wants to be treated and what her needs are. M said that they are in total agreement with this”. It was put to her this was not her being “commandeered by F” and although the Mother said she was not “aligned with his views of Children’s Services” that is not evidenced in the meeting minutes; b) In the minutes there is also a recording that the Father would not allow the social worker to see C [PP8]. The Mother agreed she did not challenge that, she did not contradict the Father; and c) She agreed that the Father was a “consistent complainer” and the impact of that on C was negative, “it infuriates people” but she agreed she would not be able to stop him making complaints if C returned home.

[168]When the Guardian gave evidence she said of co-parenting with F, “It’s tough, it’s complicated, I suppose the concern is she hasn’t through any work with professionals challenged him and the first sight of that is in this hearing…she is at the beginning of a process on that”.

[169]Whilst Ms Arnold agreed the Mother’s change of position was a positive step and indicated an increasing willingness to work with the Local Authority, in light of the previous changes there must be some concern that if C returns to the family home the Mother will not put any plan to move out into effect.

[170]Ms Laulik-Walters was asked about the change in oral evidence. She said that she was worried there had been changes and how unsettling that might be for C “not knowing what was happening there”. She was asked how the revised position affected her assessment of risk. She said that if the Mother remained in the home and the Father moved out but was visiting regularly to be involved in meeting the adult siblings’ care needs it would not make a difference, there would remain a risk of the Father not letting professionals have access to C. Conversely, if the Father moved out and did not return to assist that would be a lot for the Mother to manage and she agreed there would be a risk of the Mother being “spread too thin”. She had been asked earlier in her evidence about her assessment of risk if the Mother moved out and she said her concern was still the Mother’s ability to allow others to care for C, she was not aware of a change in that area and if Mother and C were together without the Father there was a risk “it could become very enmeshed”. She agreed that “in the immediate future it’s just too risky” for C to be cared for by Mother at home with the Father leaving the home.

[171]Dr Prentice was also asked to consider the options in her oral evidence. She said there was a high risk of relapse, “if C is very anxious and says ‘I can’t do that’ I think it would be difficult for the Mother to not step in and help her”. Specifically on returning to the home environment she was concerned that the presence of two adult siblings with difficulties “would also get in the way of C’s development” and “might present an alternative normal that she slips in to”. In relation to living solely with the Mother she thought concerns would not be mitigated, “concerns about lack of independence, only feeling safe with M and were she just to live with M nothing to suggest that wouldn’t persist”. She also referenced the Mother’s changing position suggests she is “unsure what is gong to be most helpful” and “it may be difficult for the Mother to know what is best for C at the moment and that is not best for C either.”

[172]When the Guardian gave evidence it was a similar picture. She described the Father bombarding professionals, undermining them. The Mother would have to “put in place plans to boundary him”, that was yet to be seen in practice and there is a risk of the Father obstructing professionals working with C and his narrative that the professionals are “incapable and not doing our jobs properly” trickles down to C and “that will be hard for the Mother to deal with”. She also considered how Mother caring for the adult siblings would fit with seeking to care for C and said, “I struggle to see how M could challenge C [in her OCD] in that environment…what is not known is how the family would function without F”.

Relationship with C

[173]Dr Musters also sheds some light on why the Mother’s relationship with C may be contrary to C’s welfare: [E448] 5.40 Clearly then, M’s key relationships have been, and continue to be, with her children. The prospect of losing these relationships as the children grow up and successively leave home could feel challenging. These have been her key long-term attachment relationships, and they have been intense: she recognises this of course, and knows that, in the case of C, fostering independence has been a concerted treatment goal in recent months. She knows that the relationship has been described as ‘engrained.’ But her position, broadly, is that the intensity of this relationship has been the necessary, loving response to C’s own problems: that in caring for her ill, complex, neurodiverse child, a certain type of relationship has inevitably developed. She does not feel that her own psychological needs have played a part in this.

[174]But whilst Dr Musters considers that might be right it is a complex issue.

[175]The following comments were made in the GOSH report: [E470] 5.47 Staff have expressed some concern about the extent of M’s involvement in C’s care plan and are sometimes uncertain about whether a particular issue is to do with her anxiety, or C’s anxiety. [E522] (and as also recorded above) 6.38 However, we are concerned about her mother’s ways of understanding C and interacting with her which, in our view, are causing harm to C’s development. 6.39 The central aspects of this, in our view, are M’s beliefs about C’s vulnerability and her corresponding belief that she is the only person who is truly able to help C.

[176]When giving oral evidence, Dr Prentice said that the Mother was not directly saying to C she was not able to manage but having the view that “you have this disability, you can’t manage demands, focus on what not able to do, that comes from a place of care but unfortunately it comes at a cost of not promoting independence, coping skills and resilience”. [E523] 6.42 Allied to this, M conveyed a firm view of being the only person able to meet C’s needs. … 6.44 While this way of understanding and interacting with C shows her mother’s care for and concern about her, it will have made it more difficult for C to develop confidence in being able to separate from her mother and in her own ability to manage typical developmental challenges. 6.45 It also needs to be emphasised that all five children were described by M as having significant difficulties with their mental health and ability to cope with the demands of school and gradually developing independence from their parents. We are concerned that M did not seem able to reflect on this in our assessment, perceiving the children’s needs exclusively as a product of their own vulnerabilities and not being willing to accept that parenting may have been a contributing factor.

[177]I have considered this in more detail below under the risk of harm heading.

[178]The Mother disagrees with the GOSH assessment. I note a somewhat rigid response in her witness statement (for instance taking issue with GOSH recording “C appeared disabled by her symptoms of OCD” [E466] and the Mother commenting OCD is “a disability by definition” [C294]). Whilst the Mother is no doubt right this demonstrates quite well what GOSH have highlighted. Doing my best to paraphrase the lengthy and nuanced report it is that the Mother focuses on what C cannot do rather than challenging her to live independently. That is echoed in her complaint that GOSH record “a tendency for C to retreat when stressed” [E466] saying that is “a symptom of her condition and an example of a way that I do not feel C’s diagnoses have been taken in to account” [C295]; it is a focus on what she must not be able to do because of her condition rather than what she may be capable of doing.

[179]Ms Laulik-Walters reported the Mother to have been thinking about the home environment with C in mind [E788/2.3] and noted: [E819/8.9] Both [M and C] appeared very comfortable with the other and there was a high level of warmth and affection between them. It is absolutely apparent that both love each other very dearly and that they greatly miss each other.

[180]The Mother said she thought she was being portrayed as a “monster” in proceedings. Ms Laulik-Walters considered rather that increased observation of the Mother since C had become looked after had “allowed increased assessment” of the Mother leading to the various conclusions being reached.

[181]She reports the Mother feeling like she comes across as controlling because people have not done what they say they are going to do and it is her who has to fight “tooth and nail for everything” [E793/3.11] but Ms Laulik-Walters’ reflection was that the Mother presented as anxious about the care her daughter was receiving and that “unconsciously impacts her interactions with C”; she gave a specific example of this that she witnessed [E793/3.12]. That is also picked up in the report of the Mother’s view that the support provided to C “is not sufficient for her”, as Ms Laulik-Walters comments this “is likely to impact how she engages with the professional network, and possibly C” [E798/4.12]. That was developed further when considering the Mother’s (and Father’s) concern that the professional network were exaggerating the progress C was making. Ms Laulik-Walters was “struck by the somewhat overwhelming manner” in which this was done with both continually questioning accounts provided and suggesting they were “essentially being provided in an attempt to deceive”. She felt this was unlikely (as do I) and wondered whether C was being questioned by them about it, which may feed in to a narrative of dependence or a feeling on C’s part she has to paint a poorer picture of the situation to appear loyal [E800/5.8]. Neither alternative bodes well for a return to the parents’ care.

[182]Ms Laulik-Walters also expressed concern that well intentioned intervention to meet care needs on the part of the Mother could “sometimes cause C to regress somewhat, allowing her mother to take over and there is a danger that both could slip back to M (unconsciously) increasingly doing things for C, rather than supporting C to do them for herself” [E802/5.12]. Allied to this, whilst she acknowledges the Mother to be a “font of knowledge” she is concerned how this may be perceived by C; if she understands her mother to be advocating that only certain engagement methods can work and no-one else can care for her it may “affect her motivation, self-belief, and emotional wellbeing” [E804-5/5.19]. That lead to her opinion that “C’s emotional needs are significant and, were she to return home, I feel she may again become reliant on her mother to manage” [E807/5.27] and: [E814]/6.7] What has become increasingly apparent however, is that M’s approach to supporting C may have sometimes served to hinder her by feeding a narrative that she will easily become overwhelmed and must be protected from this. Capacity to care if separated from

Father

[183]Ms Laulik-Walters reported the Mother being frank that she had no active support network she can rely upon [E794/4.1] and that the Father was “her main source of support” [E795/4.4], which of course begs the question how that might impact the Mother’s capacity were they to separate as she now proposes.

Insight

[184]It is important to note that despite the negative assessment Ms Laulik-Walters freely and enthusiastically agreed that “M is absolutely committed to C…I believe she’s always tried to do her best for [the children]”, she can speak in detail of their needs and the support she had tried to get for them, she is a skilled parent who has worked incredibly hard to understand C’s needs, she is warm, compassionate and strives very hard for her and her “knowledge of C’s diagnoses is immense”, she is incredibly skilled. The Guardian echoed this: [E895] 16. In addition M is highly committed to C, enjoys spending time with her and they share a very close and loving relationship. M has taken a great deal of time to understand C’s needs and engages with professionals as a means of trying to develop the skills to be able to parent C better.

[185]However, Ms Laulik-Walters noted some lack of insight (for instance the Mother did not believe her provision of snacks to C to be a significant issue even when it was pointed out it reduces the incentive on C to leave her room [E796/4.7]).

[186]Ms Laulik-Walters felt that if the Mother was not able to accept some of the issues she would be concerned how she would work with professionals in the future and from reading her recent statement she noted she is not ready for that and “it is quite deep rooted”. She was asked to consider what work might be undertaken to address that and said it was more the area of expertise of the multi-disciplinary team. She agreed if the Mother could be helped that would be beneficial to her and C. Dr Prentice’s oral evidence was that the treatment could come via CAMHS although their provision is variable. She said an independent psychotherapist could undertake the work but they would need to join regular professionals’ meetings and meet with the CAMHS treating clinicians directly and be provided with sufficient information about the court proceedings.

[187]I noted there was no provision for therapeutic work for the Mother in the care plan and invited the Local Authority to reflect on that which they did in producing an amended final care plan.

[188]I thought that Ms Arnold summarised the Mother’s current position very well in saying that when she read the Mother’s final witness statement, which was highly critical of the GOSH report, she was worried but on reading her position statement for this hearing (including the revised position of planning to practically separate from the Father) she thought she was “seeing an inkling of insight creeping through but it’s later in proceedings and there’s still work to be done”. Later she set out what was required of the Mother: separating from the Father as a first priority and then gaining insight into what has come out of the professional assessment (by GOSH) with honesty about whether there has been emotional abuse, perhaps controlling behaviour, by the Father in the relationship.

[189]I noted that when M was cross-examined she said she worked “so hard with professionals and following advice” and C being unwell was not anything to do with the care she was giving C. Whilst I acknowledge how difficult it must be for a parent to accept shortcomings, especially in the context of care proceedings challenging their parenting, it demonstrated a stark lack of insight into the harm the professional evidence indicates M’s approach to parenting has caused, albeit I accept with no deliberate attempt to cause harm on M’s part. On reading the GOSH report it is really quite impossible to form the view that M’s parenting had no negative impact on C’s welfare.

[190]When cross-examined about what would happen if C went home and said she did not want to see the social worker in person (as was the case prior to admission to hospital) M said “I’d work very closely with the social worker to ensure that we attempted to facilitate that happening”. When it was put to her that is what she said she had done before she agreed. There was no acceptance that what was done before was not sufficient.

[191]M was asked if there was anything about the way she parented C that needs to change. Her response was that if it was something to do with her parenting then she is open to sitting down to find out where her deficit is. First, I cannot accept it is an “if”, the professional evidence all points to C’s condition being contributed to by her parenting. Second, the GOSH report sets out clearly what needs to be done. If M cannot recognise that yet it is hard to see she is in fact open to finding out where the deficit is.

[192]Finally I acknowledge that the Mother changed her position immediately prior to closing submissions. I credit her with that. It was brave and child-focussed. As will be apparent from the rest of this judgment, I consider it reflects the welfare needs of C. It further reflects the Mother’s emerging insight; I hope she will forgive me for putting it in this way, I mean it positively not patronisingly.

Conclusions

[193]Ms Laulik-Walters concluded: [E816] I do not feel that M is able to effectively meet C’s needs at this juncture. Her need[s] are complex and, in my opinion, require the ongoing support of a skilled, professional team. [E815] 6.11 At this stage, C requires care that supports her to learn and increase her independence; that allows her to recognise her strengths; and that continues to encourage her engagement in the wider world. Given the above, I simply do not feel that M is able to provide this at this juncture. The combination of the factors outlines [sic] increases the likelihood of C’s OCD symptoms returning and, at a stage where she remains in the infancy of her recovery, this would be of significant detriment to her. I believe that M’s view that C simply would not regress on returning home is somewhat naïve given the extent of support she previously required. Furthermore, I am concerned that the lack of support network available to the family could further exacerbate any stress and difficulties experienced. [E818/8.4] Were C to return to M’s care, this combination of factors is likely to result in C quickly becoming reliant on her mother and her OCD symptoms increasing. When C is in the early stages of her recovery, I am of the view that this is not a risk that can be taken and I therefore, do not believe that M currently has the parenting capacity to keep C safe in the short term. [E819] 8.13 Were C to remain in the care of M it is likely she would become increasingly reliant on her mother for her emotional and physical needs to be met. This increases the likelihood of her OCD symptoms increasing, which would place her at risk of significant harm. C is currently in the infancy of her treatment in relation to these needs and I believe that any disruption to this support would be detrimental to her.

[194]Even if there was sufficient insight there is risk with the living arrangements proposed (as set out above) but also the Guardian said her worry was that “what we’re asking M to do is very complex, C is and has been very unwell and will immediately expect M to resolve her distress and for M to shift [her response], that will be very difficult”. Capability of parents: Father Psychiatric assessment

Capability of parents: Father

[195]The Local Authority case summary sets out the following (I have added the relevant bundle references and the summary accords with my reading of the psychiatric report): Psychiatric assessment of F by Dr Iyer dated 10.04.25 [E750]. Dr Iyer diagnoses F with autism and in particular Atypical autism. He appears to have persistent difficulties in social interaction and communication, and the presence of restricted interests [E761]. Dr Iyer also diagnoses F with moderate depressive episode. He does harbour anxiety symptoms but his depressive symptoms are predominant. He does have difficulty in continuing with his day to day life [E762]. It is very difficult to indicate a prognosis in this case as there are other ongoing issues which are closely related to F’s mood and day to day function [E764].

[196]By way of further detail I note: [E762] 6.1.4. Due to his cognitive inflexibility due to Autism, he likes to follow the rules and procedures meticulously which can lead to difficulties with other people or professionals if they do not follow the rules to the book which appears to have happened with his engagement [with] professionals recently. He is highly detail oriented and can pick up any short comings or delay in any communication making him highly irritable which has also happened in recent situation with social services and other professional involvement. [E763] 6.2.3. Regarding his parenting, Fs relationship with social services has completely broken down and this could have an impact on his ability to parent…

Relationship with professionals

[197]As noted above from the GOSH report: [E522] 6.51 Whilst there are contested facts set out by F, his relationship with the local authority has demonstrably broken down, and we are concerned that the focus on such matters as trespass by the local authority and a “Clandestine CAMHS” will firstly have stood in the way of engagement and secondly will have been very likely to undermine C’s own ability to trust professionals in supportive roles. 6.52 In the documents that F submitted to us, he refers to C’s “disability” and “processing deficits” (e.g. p6 of the Urgent Application dated 3.10.2024). While C has been diagnosed with autism, and we have not been able to discuss this terminology with F, we are concerned about the way in which this may communicate to C a sense of fixed deficits, thereby affecting confidence in her own abilities.

[198]Further: [E526] C’s needs are such that there would have to be demonstrable evidence on the part of both parents of being able to enter into an effective working relationship with both CAMHS and local authority professionals. In our view, F has not at this point demonstrated that he would be able to do this.

[199]I have covered some of Ms Laulik-Walters assessment above as she held a joint session with the parents to consider the GOSH report at their request. The crucial starting point for an assessment of the Father is encapsulated within two paragraphs of Ms Laulik-Walters’ report because it addresses the Father’s focus on his disability and his needs (with my emphasis): [E848] 4.29 F took great issue when I raised concern that he may not be able to sufficiently respond to C’s emotional needs. He questioned if I was stating that he could not parent because he has a disability. He then stated, “the way you’ve got to look at it, from a legal aspect, is that if it is a disability, holding me accountable to that is not appropriate”. I explained to F that I had to consider C’s needs and his ability to meet these based on his presentation – I recognise that his communication needs and struggles with emotional regulation arise as a result of his autism diagnosis – however they cannot simply be ignored if they will impact how he is able to respond to C. The care that she receives at this stage is crucial and I am of the view that this needs to be skilled, professional care that consistently responds to her emotional presentation and promotes her independence.

[200]In similar vein later in the report: [E857] 7.7 There are ongoing issues in communication between F and the professional network and he feels that he is largely excluded from all care planning and decision making for his daughter… When speaking with F, the focus of conversation was regularly on this topic and this shifts focus from C.

[201]This very much reflects how he has approached these proceedings with an intense focus on his needs and rights (for instance the 40 applications made in July), which to a great extent has deflected from a focus by him on C’s needs. It has, at times, been hard to keep proceedings focused on C’s welfare for this reason.

[202]Similarly, another aspect of my experience of the Father’s engagement with proceedings is echoed in this passage in the report: [E852] 4.45…F continues to have a very strong commitment to enabling C’s autonomy. Whist I am, of course, generally in agreement with this and absolutely believe C should be encouraged and enabled to have her voice heard and her wishes acted upon, I am clear that this must only be if they are in her interests. Previously, F prevented Social Workers from visiting C when she stated that she no longer wanted to see them and, whilst he believes this was in her interest, I am not in agreement with this.

[203]She reaches the following conclusions (my emphasis): [E838] 3.5…It is difficult to assess how F might engage with the professional network were C to return to the family home. There has been no finding of fact in relation to the disputes F has raised, such as the ‘clandestine’ CAMHS group, and so it is difficult to talk with him about these issues with any certainty as one can neither shut down or agree with the statements. In my opinion, this makes it very difficult for F to move on from his preoccupation with these matters. 3.7…F continues to hold very negative views regarding the care his daughter has been afforded. During our sessions he told me that he continues to feel excluded from C’s care planning and decision making for her. He stated that he: is not invited to meetings; was not included in C’s transition to [placement]; has been banned from contacting the placement directly; regularly does not receive replies to emails; does not feel his views are taken into account in Court as his position statements are not read; that he [has] been unfairly prevented from having contact with C. He spoke at length about his views that C has been failed by CAMHS and the Local Authority. He suggested that the GOSH assessment was biased in some way because the Guardian had requested this be undertaken and he believed it had been completed alongside the Local Authority. [E839] 3.8 His anger at these perceived failures of his daughter dominated all of our conversations and I am concerned that this might continue to be the case moving forwards if the support offered to her at home was not in line with what he deemed to be sufficient. Were this to be the case, it is likely that both F and C’s ability to engage with her professional support network would be significantly impaired and this would likely impact her wellbeing and recovery. [E845] 4.21…I believe it is crucial that C is encouraged to form meaningful relationships with all professionals providing essential support to her. If C were to return home, I wonder whether F may harbour similar feelings to professionals providing support. If this were to be the case, the likelihood of C engaging would be low and I feel this would be detrimental to her. 4.22 There are ongoing issues regarding F’s working relationship with the professional network and it has been documented that he makes reference to this in front of C, for example, the GOSH report states that he shared with C that the Local Authority were not allowing him to see her (E480, 5.101). When asked about this, F stated that he was just being honest and that he did not want C to think that he hadn’t seen her of his own accord. Sharing such information with C, however, will undoubtedly impact her view of Local Authority and this is likely to negatively affect her engagement.

[204]I note that F sent a reply to my judicial response confirming he would be admitted to the final hearing by CVP if he wished but would be asked to confirm he was not recording; he sent a further message attaching a document written by C giving her consent to him recording. It demonstrates him involving C inappropriately in the court process and again risks demonstrating to C his disagreement with the process.

[205]Ms Laulik-Walters continued in relation to C absconding from the placement: [E846] 4.24 F was, understandably, distraught that C absconded in the manner that she did when considering the multitude of things that could have happened to her. He expressed anger as he does not believe the concerns he raised were acknowledged or taken seriously at the time.

[206]It is quite hard to reconcile this with the position he adopted in response to the Local Authority application for a Deprivation of Liberty Order which was heard by HHJ Moradifar and which was vehemently opposed by him in correspondence and he has sought permission to appeal (although I am not clear whether that has progressed in the absence of him paying the appropriate fee). The Guardian commented on this in her final analysis saying “it seems to indicate a lack of recognition of the risks that C can put herself in” [E892] (a comment that she applies to both parents in this context).

[207]The report continued in relation to F’s response to the therapeutic team around C: [E854] 5.9 I do not agree, that F’s approach of battling against this is in C’s best interests and feel that this prevents him from focussing on the progress that C is making. 5.10 Were F to be caring for C, I believe this approach would be significantly detrimental to her and likely lead to her disengaging from support services. In addition to this, I am concerned that F presents with low emotional availability and, were C to be struggling, he may struggle to respond to her in a timely or appropriate manner. Whilst I recognise that this is linked to his diagnosis of autism, it cannot be ignored as C’s needs being sufficiently met is of paramount concern. I am of the view that C requires a skilled, available team who are able to monitor and respond appropriately to her mood.

[208]When the previous social worker, Ms Rosier, gave evidence she was taken to her evidence at [C20/1.18] in which she referred to the suggestion of stepping down the Child Protection Plan to a Child in Need Plan to attempt to “eliminate [the parents’] fears of professional involvement”. Her oral evidence was that would not normally be a reason for a step down and she was asked whether, from her involvement, professionals’ worries about complaints from the Father may have played a part. She agreed and also agreed that his presentation was “very powerful and that affected the decisions about a very vulnerable child”. She gave concrete examples of that: that the Father would “often record me at the property stating I was trespassing, we had to have a second social worker attending because of intimidation”, he was verbally aggressive and she agreed the obstruction particularly by the Father “had a considerable impact on professionals’ ability to help C and keep her well”.

[209]That evidence was echoed by the assistant team manager, Ms Arnold who, in answer to a question about how the Father had presented during proceedings said: Difficult all the way through, going in to PLO was difficult, CP conferences difficult, all really focused around F and his need for reasonable adjustments and why the Local Authority should not be involved and that the social worker should not come to his house, it has caused barriers to us being able to support C… … A lot of professionals get bogged down with high number of complaints, they are exhausting for professionals, he goes to top of an organisation and works way down, there is fear amongst professionals and maybe that’s why took so long to get to Child Assessment Order application. Q He was controlling professionals? A To a degree, yes Q Seems to want to control situation using techniques you’ve described? A Yes, controlled by his need for reasonable adjustments and in my opinion the need to protect C is almost superseded by that

[210]That last piece of evidence has been my experience during these proceedings: there is an unremitting focus by the Father on his needs almost to the exclusion of appropriate focus on C’s welfare needs. That is amply demonstrated by the Father’s refusal to confirm he will not record hearings the consequence of which has sadly been that he has been unable to play an active role in this final hearing addressing C’s welfare.

[211]Ms Arnold went on to say it was important for the Mother to support any final care order but that it would be difficult for her if the Father was undermining the placement. Worryingly she said: I’m surprised the placement has lasted as long as it has. A number of complaints, they are daily, F is not happy with C in the placement and they have been very overwhelmed by the level of complaints and I’ve been concerned they will say they can’t manage and we need to end this placement.

[212]A review of the DOLS order was listed to be heard on the first day of the final hearing (4 August 2025), it having been granted on 4 July 2025. I was informed that day that an alternative placement was having to be sourced and I extended the order to 6 August 2025 to enable notice to be given to the Father. The Local Authority filed a position statement on the morning of 6 August the content of which was extremely disturbing: [A593] 1. On 4.8.25 the Operational Manager for [placement] contacted the social worker to report that she had a call from Anna Williams, Social Care and Compliance Inspector, Regulation and Social Care and Compliance Inspector, Regulation and Social Care Policy at Ofsted. Ofsted explained they had contact from a member of the public with concerns regarding the registration of [placement] with Ofsted and specifically with regards to the care of a 16 year old accommodated at the placement. 2. That afternoon Ofsted served [the placement] with a notification to cease operating or caring for any young people under the age of 18. That meant C needed to move to a different placement within 48 hours.

[213]I extended the DOLS Order to the date of handing down this judgment on 16 September 2025. C was fortunately able to be accommodated in an alternative provision close by with the same educational provision and the support staff could be moved with her. As noted above the fact there was a change of placement and the fact it was at such short notice must have been exceptionally upsetting for C. Whilst I was not invited to make a finding, there must be a suspicion that the “member of the public with concerns” about a 16 year old in the placement was in fact the Father and in giving oral evidence the Mother said that the Father told her he had emailed Ofsted. If it was the Father it chimes entirely with Ms Arnold’s evidence, set out immediately above.

[214]In the event a final Care Order was made then placements ending for reasons other than C’s welfare would be very destabilising for C and would have the potential to cause great harm to her.

Relationship with C

[215]Ms Laulik-Walters variously reported (my emphasis): [E835] 2.5…C requires consistent, predictable care from someone attuned to her needs. She requires a flexible approach from a carer who can respond to her in the moment. F was very definite in his view that these factors [difficulties F experiences in social communication] do not impact his ability to care for his daughter. He stated that his rule bound approach has only ever applied in professional interactions and that he is completely flexible within his parenting, as evidenced by the manner in which he cares for [sibling], responding to her needs as required. I expressed concern that the difficulties he experiences with social communication skills could impact his ability to respond appropriately to C’s emotional needs, something that could be detrimental to her at a time where she requires very skilled support. F became very agitated when discussing this matter, raising his voice and repeatedly talking over me, asking “are you saying that because I have a disability I can’t parent?”. I repeatedly tried to explain to F that I was simply considering how he is able to respond to his daughter’s emotional needs…he reflected that he can struggle to respond appropriately in times of need and that this can be experienced as difficult by the children. It is essential to consider these factors when considering his parenting capacity – that they are a symptom of his autism diagnosis does not mean they should be discounted. It is, of course, essential to consider if there are any measures that could be put in place to assist F with these factors. Given that they are an integral part of his functioning, however, I do not believe there to be anything that could assist with this in terms of his day to day interactions with his daughter. [E836] 2.6…At times when I did not agree with the challenges he made, he became irritated, sometimes shouting. 2.7 F’s presentation at this time is clearly in line with his communication difficulties. When I asked how C might experience such communication, suggesting that this could be difficult for her, F was dismissive, stating that he does not speak with her in this manner…there will of course be times of conflict and dispute about any range of issues and it is these moments that must be considered…It is important to consider how C might experience such behaviours and, in my opinion, they are not conducive to providing her with the consistent, available emotional support that she requires.

[216]Ms Laulik-Walters concluded: [E855] I do not feel F is able to offer consistent, emotionally available care that could sufficiently meet C’s needs at this juncture. Her need[s] are complex and, in my opinion, require the ongoing support of a skilled, professional team. [E858] 7.8…I do not feel that F has the capacity to respond to C in a way that can meet her needs. Given that these factors are an integral part of F’s functioning, I do not think that there are any services that could assist with this. [E859] 7.14 Were C to remain in the care of F I do not believe her emotional needs would be sufficiently met. She presents with a range of complex needs and I believe that she requires the support of a skilled, professional team to meet these at this stage.

Any harm suffered or at risk of suffering

[217]Much of the evidence in relation to risk of harm has been covered above when considering parenting capacity but drawing some strands together I note the following evidence:

[218]The GOSH report considered predisposing and perpetuating factors (my emphasis): [E514] 6.16 It is reasonable to conclude that C has a genetic vulnerability to neurodevelopmental difference, although equally it is possible that there has been an expectation within the family of social communication needs in each of the children, and less opportunity to develop social communication strengths. … 6.17 C is the youngest of five children and grew up in a household where each of her siblings had their own needs and difficulties around education, mental and physical health and social communication. C will have observed her older siblings’ difficulties, including school refusal, as well as her parents’ response to them. Her mother has described years of advocating for and supporting her children through the education system, and there is evidence to suggest that these struggles were not kept from the children; C mentioned not receiving the support she needed at the start of primary school, which is unlikely to be an observation she had herself as a young child, as well as remembering being told [sibling] was “locked in a cupboard” at school, which must have been very frightening for her. It will have been hard for C not to expect that she too would struggle in a world where her siblings had, and for her to have faith in systems that appeared to fail them. [E515] 6.19 M has been responsive to her children’s distress, including supporting them to engage in alternative forms of education such as medical tuition and home education. However in her description of her children’s needs and development there was a notable absence of discussion around resilience and coping, and both [siblings] remain at home as young adults and to the best of our knowledge heavily reliant on their parents. C has seen A and [another sibling] leave home, but she has also had lots of experience of her siblings not being able to cope without her parents, particularly her mother. This has been mirrored in her own reliance on her mother to cope with anxiety and distress. 6.20 There is a sense that it is difficult for C and her family to experience, describe and work through difficult feelings. Autism can affect an individual’s ability to identify, label and describe their own and others’ emotions, and it may have been difficult for F to support these skills in his children as well as harder for them to develop these skills themselves given their diagnoses. Additionally, M’s focus on solving problems and removing difficulties from C, describing things as too overwhelming for her, removing her from the school system and seeking to protect her from experiences and appointments that she assumes would be too challenging for her, will have reduced C’s opportunities to sit with difficult feelings and learn that she can cope with them. It will have been very hard for C to develop emotion regulation skills in this environment. [E516] M’s involvement in C’s compulsions, including supporting her with self-care and eating, will have maintained them: C would have learnt from her mother’s behaviour that only her mother could keep her safe, and that her anxieties were justified. The hypothesis that her OCD was being maintained by this accommodation is evidenced by how quickly it improved when she was admitted to [psychiatric unit]. [E517] 6.24 C presents with a high risk of relapse in terms of her OCD symptoms, avoidance behaviours and low mood, if she is not supported to continue to develop independence and engagement in activities and education, and if the maintaining factors described above remain… [E518] 6.26 C’s preoccupation with going home, as well as describing the only things going well currently as being visits with her family, and only feeling herself when she is with them, means that it will be very hard for her to invest in new relationships with placement and school staff, and to acknowledge positive experiences beyond her home and family. She will need significant help to begin to explore who she is separately to her parents. C also needs help from her family in this task: if her parents cannot tolerate supporting her with gaining independence and stepping back to allow others to support her, her prognosis will be much poorer. [E524] Without significant intervention, we are concerned that C is likely to follow a similar trajectory [to her older siblings who remain at home] of being dependent on her mother and not developing her own social world and living skills outside of her immediate family. [E527] 6.59 As set out in our answer to Question 5, M has been able to show limited acknowledgement of her own contribution to C’s difficulties, appears still to firmly believe that these difficulties are related exclusively to vulnerabilities that are innate to C and that it is only through her own support as C’s mother that C can make progress. 6.60 We are therefore concerned that C would be at risk of a poor outcome were she to return to her mother’s care. There is a high risk that M will continue to withdraw C from situations in which she is perceived to be “overwhelmed”, communicate a sense of C’s vulnerabilities in a way that exacerbates and maintains them, and find it difficult to promote more adaptive functioning on C’s part. 6.61 The acute risk is of a relapse in C’s OCD symptoms, and of C continuing to avoid education and other activities. There is a long-term risk that M will struggle to promote C’s strengths sufficiently to allow her to reach her educational potential and develop a social life outside of the home, independent living skills and a more positive self-concept. [E528] 6.66…She is likely, were she to return home, to be exposed to beliefs from her parents about her vulnerability that inform their interactions with her and serve to maintain her difficulties. A placement would allow the local authority to form a care plan that enabled C to do more independently of her mother, benefiting her confidence and making her more resilient.

[219]The report concluded: [E456] 1.6 Our view is that C’s parents would not be able to meet her needs were she to return home, and she would be at very high risk of relapse and further stalling in her development. We are therefore recommending that C remains in local authority care and that contact with her parents is carefully managed and facilitated to ensure that she has an opportunity to develop a level of independence more appropriate for a young person of her age and a more positive sense of her own abilities.

[220]In the Local Authority final evidence Ms Arnold said “I am not confident that M would be able to override F’s views and allow professionals into the home without the Court’s oversight.” [C260]. That is entirely consistent with my experience of the Father in these proceedings. Whilst it may be the result of his disability, the Father has at almost every turn put up barriers to engagement with the proceedings (for instance demanding documents are served only by post and the Local Authority were not even permitted to hand deliver documents to his door). Ms Arnold also relies upon comments by the Mother to Dr Musters: [E416-7] 4.18…”Because me being on ‘the front line’ was causing C to spiral so much more. So we made the decision that he would take the front line with the Local Authority.” 4.19 I asked how she thinks that worked out, with F being the family ‘spokesman’ in that regard. She said: “Well, no, that didn’t work out well. And that’s part of the situation we’re in… I asked whether she feels that she had worked well with the Local Authority, but when F took over as the ‘spokesman’ the relationship with professionals changed. She said: “Yes… it’s really difficult because… with F, when trust gets broken, he really struggles to keep working with individuals. But I didn’t have the option to work with them, so he really had to”.

[221]Of course the Mother did not at that stage step in and take over and the risk is she will not do so in the future and the Father will, in her words, really struggle to keep working with the Local Authority.

[222]Ms Arnold also made reference to the Father’s comment in the parenting assessment that he always encouraged C to meet with social workers except when she “stated she did not want to see them” [E838]. She said, and I agree, “Should C return home and state (again) that she does not want to see professionals, then it is highly likely that F would stop all support, and this would result in C deteriorating” [C262].

[223]The Guardian has summarised the evidence very succinctly (and I cannot improve upon it) in this way: [E891] 4…it is the view of professionals that C’s mental health inter-related with her social, educational, behavioural and emotional development is exacerbated by the parents’ lack of engagement and sometimes obstruction of support services in place to support C and the family. Additionally, how the parents perceive C and construct her mental health difficulties from deficit-based models of thinking, alongside their difficulties managing her distress appropriately, creates a lens by which she understands herself. The parenting C has received means that she has not developed the necessary skills to manage challenge and discomfort and has ultimately inhibited her from progressing in the wide-ranging realms of her functioning relating to her education, physical and mental health, and has left her ultimately stuck in the role of ‘being cared for’. It will be explored below how these complex dynamics as they relate to parenting and risk have profound implications for all areas of C’s development and future. 5…Due to the lack of progress in terms of the parents’ ability to meet C’s needs, the significant concern for C is of regression if she were to return to the family home and the profound implication that this has for all areas of her life.

[224]As to the risks from the Mother’s revised position Ms Arnold gave this evidence: Q What is likely to happen if C goes home with both parents in the property A I don’t think we’d get in to the house at all, I don’t think F has changed his position, unlikely we’ll get professionals in to the house and find ourselves in the position we were before and previously M was not able to override at the time we were trying to see C Q M says C should come home in witness statement but in her position statement she says she would seek to care for C in different accommodation, have you seen any steps taken to secure that proposal A I haven’t seen any steps, no Q If they go to other accommodation just the 2 of them A GOSH view is relationship is enmeshed with an impact on C’s development as we saw after the Child Assessment Order, highly likely that will continue and question is how much M can change parenting Q What level of confidence that M would be able to make those alterations A Very little and risk that even if M moved into a house on her own nothing stopping C going back to family home and there would be even more risk Q What about F leaving the family home A I think that is highly unlikely, because there’s no plan as to where he would go, he has most of the responsibility for looking after [sibling], I don’t have a plan whether [the sibling] would move out, I’ve not seen any confirmation from F he is willing to move out

[225]When giving evidence, M accepted there is no reason to think F’s undermining of relationships between her and professionals would stop; she said the Father “is who he is and even the risk of losing C, he has not amended his ways”.

[226]The Guardian presents a summary of the parties’ roles in this way: [E898] 25… Although the parents’ care of C may be inadvertent and is certainly framed within love and what is perceived as best intentions, these dynamics have served to create ingrained and perpetual family roles of C as the ‘disabled’, mother as the ‘carer’ and father as the ‘advocate’.

[227]The consequence is: [E899] 26…A significant concern if C were to return home is that mental health work is challenging, and making progress in terms of her mental health, as well as in terms of her education, independence and social life will involve some degree of challenge to C. Her carers will need to tolerate her distress in order for her to make therapeutic progress and work effectively with all professionals to that aim. Currently neither parent acknowledges these issues exist within the family dynamics, they disagree with professional advice relating to what C needs and have not developed the necessary skills to be able to parent C therapeutically. 27. As a result of these assessments, I agree with Ms Laulik-Walters, GOSH, and the local authority that the parents cannot meet C’s needs and she would be at significant risk of relapse if she returned to their care. It has not been evidenced that the parents have been able to make any progress in terms of the concerns raised and it cannot be seen how C’s outcomes would change if she returned home. These risks are further exacerbated by F not being able to work with professionals

Capability of others: A and husband

[228]The initial viability assessment of A and her husband is very positive. The couple have a good understanding of C’s medical conditions and empathy towards them [C238], together with lived experience of meeting similar needs [C242]; they demonstrated a clear understanding of the importance of education [C241]. From a practical point of view work needs to be done to bring their accommodation up to standard and renovation works are under way [C240]. Of greatest need for fuller assessment are their medical conditions set out at [C242] which include depression and social anxiety (A’s husband) and autism, anxiety, depression, PTSD, OCD and Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome. That requires both fuller investigation and consideration of how C’s complex needs can be met adequately whilst managing those conditions.

[229]The kinship assessment plan envisages a full connected persons assessment being completed by 31 October 2025 [C305].

[230]The Guardian identified the risks in this way: [E904] If C moves to a family placement that breaks down because the local authority assess it is not meeting C’s needs, the effect on C would be catastrophic. C’s mental health is fragile and a return to residential or foster care from her sister’s home would be highly detrimental. Therefore a move could only take place when it is assessed that the carers are able to meet C’s needs in the long-term. My view is that the assessment of A [and husband] is highly complex and cannot be completed within proceedings. This relates to a need to better understand[] how A [and husband]’s own mental health influences their ability to provide care. Further assessment is needed into their ability to work with a multi-disciplinary team and interventions will be needed to support them to parent a young person with complex needs. Further support will be needed relating to their ability to understand the risks relating to F and M, alongside assessing and testing their ability to protect C from the complex family dynamics.

[231]It is plain I am not in a position to be satisfied at present that they can provide good enough care to C in light of C’s current presentation. They remain a viable option and as noted above the Local Authority will assess them further.

Range of powers

[232]The GOSH report considers: [E526] 6.58…it is our opinion that the care plan for C should be to remain in local authority care as we are concerned that her mother will not be able to meet her needs. [E528] She is likely, were she to return home, to be exposed to beliefs from her parents about her vulnerability that inform their interactions with her and serve to maintain her difficulties. A placement would allow the local authority to form a care plan that enabled C to do more independently of her mother, benefiting her confidence and making her more resilient. [E529] 6.68 The principal disadvantage of a placement is that it would run contrary to C’s wishes and is likely to affect her engagement with other aspects of her care plan…This creates a dilemma in terms of how to support C as were C to be informed about a reduction in contact or more extended period living in a placement we would anticipate a deterioration in her engagement, withdrawal and unhappiness about the decision, but our view is these measures will be necessary in enabling C to move forward in her development. 6.69 As a mitigation, it will be crucial that C is given a good explanation for the decisions of the court, if our recommendations were to be followed. [E530] 6.71 In terms of developing less reliance, this will be a delicate balance, as it will run contrary to what C is likely to ask for, but we would recommend a further decrease in the frequency of contact with her mother to a couple of times a week.

[233]This reduction in contact was sanctioned on an interim basis and represents the current arrangement.

[234]Ms Laulik-Walters said, and I agree, “C is currently 16 years old and there is a small window of opportunity prior to her reaching adulthood where she can be supported to increase her independence” [E810/5.39].

[235]In her oral evidence Ms Laulik-Walters confirmed she recommended a Care Order under which there could be an assessment both of A and her husband and to assess whether the Mother can make changes such that she is in a position to offer C safe care.

[236]The Guardian has considered the options in this way: [E907]38. Significantly, C feels emotionally safe at home and struggles to experience this sense of safety anywhere else. This is likely to mean that C experiences lower levels of distress within the home environment. However, there is a flip side to this as it is evidenced that C is at high risk of relapse if she returns to the home. Although there are identified strengths with respect to the parents’ care of C, particularly relating to their love and commitment to her, it is assessed that very little has changed in terms of their ability to meet C’s needs. It is not evidenced how the care provided for her would be different from that she experienced in August 2024, as both parents lack insight into their own roles in parenting C and the implications that this has had in exacerbating her mental health. In addition, the parents continue to prescribe to deficit-led models of thinking, will struggle to challenge and disrupt C’s thought processes in order to promote her therapeutic progress. [E908]

39. Balancing the positives of C returning home against the significant risk, alongside the detrimental implications for C of not returning to the family home, it is my view that the risks to C of returning home in terms of her mental health, emotional and behavioural develop and ability to become independent mean that continued separation from her parents remains necessary and proportionate. I therefore support the making of a Care Order.

Holistic balancing exercise

[237]I come now to consider the balancing exercise that is required by B-S.244. Realistic Option 1: Return home Factors in favour Factors against Consistent with C’s wishes Risk of perpetuation of harm suffered in care of parents Cared for by her immediate family Risk of deterioration in C’s welfare necessitating a change of care plan for removal and the potential application to discharge the Care Order if the parents disagree with a change in care plan proposing removal from their care C having an initial feeling of greater agency in her life Any work that might be carried out by C’s parents is not within C’s timescales in light of her age and the limited time in which change can be effected under a Care Order Risk Father will not permit access to C

245. Realistic Option 2: Remaining in placement with a Care Order Factors in favour Factors against Safe care attuned to C’s needs Contrary to C’s wishes Continuation of the status quo Remaining a looked after child Current placement understands C’s needs Takes away, at least in the short term, C’s sense of agency No change in circumstances Risk of regression or stalling in progress Contact with parents and family promoted in a safe and supportive environment Risk of a significantly adverse response (suicidal ideation, giving up hope) Risk of absconding and need for DOLS orders

246. Realistic Option 3: Placement with A and her husband with a Care Order Factors in favour Factors against Consistent with C’s secondary wishes No full assessment yet completed with significant (but not necessarily insurmountable) concerns which require further exploration Cared for by her extended family May necessitate a further move if the assessment is negative which risks being emotionally damaging to C Contrary to C’s primary wishes Remaining a looked after child

Comparison of Options

[238]I was struck by a sentence in the Guardian’s oral evidence when she was asked about the risks of a Care Order, having said C would be very unhappy she said “but the risks of returning home are clear, relapse on OCD, are clear whereas the progress in care is positive”. I observe the risks arising from a Care Order are real and significant but the response in care has been positive. The risks of a return home are also real and significant but the evidence is that at home there was deterioration not progress. Putting it clearly, the evidence suggests some uncertainty about improvement in care but conversely relative certainty that at home there will be no progression; that is what all the professional evidence and recent past history indicates. I am balancing uncertainty but with the hope of progress against virtual certainty of no progress. On that analysis the weighing of the factors leads inexorably to a conclusion the least worst option for C, that which is in her best interest, is the making of a Care Order with a plan to remain in residential care.

Contact

[239]Whilst the contact aspect of the care plan proposes a continuation of current contact arrangements for the Mother it proposes a change for the Father, namely a move from the placement to a contact centre (keeping supervised contact in the home fortnightly). The Guardian agrees the plan and in her final analysis said: [E908] 42… the deficit-led models of disability and overwhelm continue to exist, alongside narratives by F that serve to undermine professionals, the home she lives in and the services in place to support her. This creates destabilisation for C and means she remains stuck. When balancing the positives and difficulties with contact, I agree that the family time should remain at the same levels of C seeing her mother two times per week and F once per week. This does however need to be closely supervised, with supervisors willing to intervene if detrimental dynamics or narratives become evident.

[240]The Local Authority say the change for the Father is necessitated by the evidence of the operations director set out below. That evidence is supported by the Mother’s oral evidence set out above that at contact on 8 August 2025, when the Father was informed of the change in the plan for his contact, he was frustrated, he said in front of C he was not going to have contact in a contact centre and clung on to C saying “you might never see me again, it might be the last time you see me”.

[241]In the witness statement of the placement operations director it is said that F’s behaviour at contact “has not been acceptable or appropriate” [C322]; I have set out the specific examples of this relied upon under the heading “Non-Molestation Order against the Father” below.

[242]Moving to a contact centre has a number of disadvantages: it involves travel for C, it is a less natural environment for C, it would mean she could not more directly share what she has been doing in placement and the supervisors will, at least initially, not be known to C or F which may make it more awkward. However, it avoids the risk of placement breakdown which I consider further below. The consequences of this would be harmful to C’s welfare. I also note there is no reduction in contact proposed. On balance I consider the proposal is in C’s welfare interest and of course the Local Authority will keep it under review as part of the LAC review process.

[243]As regards indirect contact, the Guardian expressed concerns about indirect contact with the parents and considers boundaries are required [E909/42]. She developed this in her oral evidence saying the position is different for each parent: C has a close relationship with M and C’s “lifeline” is her phone so she would not want there to be restrictions, taking it away would be “detrimental but it is something that needs to be kept under review” although with M it is “okay”. She went on to consider restrictions on the Father in relation to a Non-Molestation Order and section 91(14) Order and she thought a Non-Molestation Order in relation to the Father’s indirect contact “could be helpful”. I will consider this further below.

Non-Molestation Order against the Father

[244]By section 63(1) and (2)(g) Family Law Act 1996 these are “family proceedings” being brought under Part IV of the Children Act 1989. Accordingly, and on the authority of Re T if needed, there is power to make a non-molestation order against the Father notwithstanding there is no application for the same. The Local Authority invite me to make the order. The Guardian supports the order being made. The Mother was neutral. I proceed on the basis the Father opposes the making of such an order although he did not address me on the issue as he was disconnected from the hearing on 14 August because he refused to confirm he was not recording.

[245]The Local Authority initially invited a Non-Molestation Order in these terms: [C330]a. F must not harass/pester C’s placement or any placement staff, current or any future placement, if any, by way of his communications, direct and indirect.

b. F must not send any direct emails to the placement or communicate directly with the placement manager. Any updates on C’s placement, any concerns he may have, he must address via the Local Authority limited to 1 email per week.

c. Any communication from F should be focused on C’s welfare and must not [be] abusive or threatening.

[246]I would say immediately that an injunction to direct the Father to focus on C’s welfare is not an injunction that can be made under section 42 of the Family Law Act 1996. The extent of the power is to prohibit molestation (section 42(1)) not to mandate behaviour. The Local Authority recognised that and in closing submissions did not pursue the point.

[247]Next, I consider if there is evidence of harassment of C noting that the placement cannot be considered an “associated person” as would be required for an order under section 42(1)(a) by reference to the definition of associated person in section 63(1) which in turn refers to section 62(3) to (6).

[248]I derive some further assistance from the specific facts of Re T (above). In that case the behaviour complained of was set out in this way: [45] In the present case, on the judge’s findings, the mother and Mr JM had been involved in a concerted course of conduct in which they had traced the child’s foster home some 3 years earlier and identified her school. The mother told the judge that she had been to the area of the foster home, which is a significant distance from her own home, to observe the child on more than 30 occasions over the previous 3 years. In 2015 she had left a card one night next to the foster carer’s car; the card said ‘you only have one Mammy, I will have you back, and it won’t be long now’. More recently, in February 2017, the mother accepted that she had asked two boys at the child’s school to pass a note to the child which read:

‘Mammy loves you and is coming to take you home soon. Do not show anyone. Put in bin after reading. Show no one’

. The boys very sensibly immediately passed the note to the headteacher. The judge held that this was a genuine expression of the mother’s intention to abduct the child. [46] The judge accepted that the passing of the more recent note, although it had not been seen by the child, had immediate consequences for the foster carers and the child. He accepted the validity of the foster carer’s account to which I have already made reference.

[249]The judge at first instance determined that did not amount to harassment sufficient to call for the intervention of the court, the reasoning being, as set out in Re T: [14] The judge’s second reason, and as I read the judgment this was the determinative factor leading him to reject the local authority’s invitation, related to the definition of ‘molestation’ and is expressed as follows:

‘[81] … the provision is designed to prevent molestation. “Molest” is not further defined but has been taken to mean “pester” or conduct which constitutes such a degree of harassment as to call for the intervention of the court; C v C [2001] EWCA Civ 1625. The court cannot make a non-molestation order unless there is evidence of molestation. [82] In the present case there is evidence of watching, observing, researching habits and passing notes which are unsettling and disturbing, but which have not actually been seen by [the child]. I am not convinced that this constitutes molestation to justify an order under the Family Law Act 1996. [83] Accordingly I have come to the clear conclusion that it would be stretching the legislation beyond a permissible margin to make an order under the Family Law Act 1996.’

[250]The Court of Appeal disagreed, McFarlane LJ holding (my emphasis): [51] Despite making a clear finding that the child was likely to suffer significant emotional harm if the mother and Mr JM’s conduct continued, and despite holding that, by applying the relevant statutory criteria, an order was clearly necessary, the judge nevertheless declined to make a non-molestation order for the reasons given at paras [81]–[83] (set out at para [14] above). [52] The judge’s conclusion, that, because the actions complained of had not actually been seen by the child, this did not constitute molestation sufficient to justify an order under the FLA 1996, seems to have been based upon the absence of any direct, one-to-one harassment of the child by the mother or Mr JM. [53] Although the judge is a most experienced family lawyer and judge, I am clear that his conclusion was made in error. There is no requirement in either the FLA 1996 or the case-law for there to be some direct interaction between the respondent and the applicant or child in order to establish the basis for granting a non-molestation order. The judge’s finding that the mother and Mr JM’s conduct was ‘positively harmful’ to the child and, if continued, would be likely to cause significant harm, was more than sufficient to justify exercising the powers under s 42. The impact on the child’s life of the mother and Mr JM’s conduct, as described by the foster carers and as found by the judge, plainly amounts to harassment and, as the judge held, applying the s 42(5) criteria, makes the granting of an order clearly necessary. Where, as here, a judge has held that the child’s very placement with the foster carers was threatened by the actions of this ‘desperate’ mother, it was in my view, erroneous to hold that the court lacked jurisdiction to make a non-molestation injunction.

[251]I have considered whether it would be a proper exercise of the court’s jurisdiction to use the mechanism of a Family Law Act injunction to prevent the Father communicating directly with the placement in the exercise of a statutory right to request information, such as under data protection legislation, but I am reassured the injunction sought does not prevent such requests but would require them to be directed via the Local Authority. That is similar to an injunction preventing direct communication with a co-parent about the exercise of parental responsibility and requiring it to be via that other parent’s solicitor or third party as is often ordered when making a Non-Molestation Order.

[252]The Local Authority rely upon a statement prepared by the Operations Director of the company running both placements (the one C was in prior to it changing during the course of the final hearing and the one to which she moved). Her evidence was not challenged in cross-examination and is of the Father sending “a number of emails over the period from 27.2.25 to the 10.4.25” to the registered manager. The manager is described to have found them “demanding and threatening in tone”. They ceased on 10 April 2025 when an email was sent informing the Father communication must be through the Local Authority. It is reported the Father made a false allegation about the manager reporting him to police which was not the case. Communication then commenced with the operations manager and is described in this way: [C321] 10.6.25 F emails [operations director] advising that he wishes to raise two complaints against the manager and a member of staff at [former placement] 11.6.25 - Email to request copy of investigation report for incident on the 15.6.25 [this date must be inaccurate but nothing turns on it]. States that our engagement in this will mean he will not have to raise a complaint on C’s behalf 18.6.25 Email with Subject Access Request - however states if we provide the investigation report initially requested then there will be no need to progress the SAR. Requests copies of records are in paper and digital format and includes all written information, video, audio and photographic recordings (digital and physical) and any other records held. 24.6.25 Email requesting CEO details 24.6.25 - Formal Complaint received from F in regards to the manager… 21.7.25 Email where he raises formal complaint in our lack of response to the SAR and providing him with the information requested. In the interim, I have received emails from Ofsted and the CQC about the registration of [former placement] and then a call with the compliance inspector on Monday the 4th of August after which we were served a notice to cease operation until such a time we have registered the service. All of the above has increased organisational risk with threats by F to contact Ofsted (which he has), duress caused to the manager of the home with the barrage of emails and complaints from F; further emails to myself, all of which are causing unnecessary time away from our roles in caring for and supporting the placement for C. F has made a number of threats and been coercive in his emails to me - for example, if you send me the investigation report he will not progress a SAR I have raised concerns about the stability of the placement to the local authority as F has brought considerable organisational risk to [placement company] and has resulted in the move of C to another home within our organisation. F has raised allegations against staff, sent numerous complaints and demanding emails. All in our view, are of a combative and threatening nature. We are of the opinion that F has sought to undermine and destabilise the placement for C. C has had to be moved due to his contact with regulators and other interference with the home with persistent challenges to either myself or [manager].

[253]The Guardian’s oral evidence was that she has found interactions with the Father “bombarding and undermining, there was a time it was daily, instructions on what I should do, criticisms of my practice, that I should step down, that NYAS should do my job, I was constantly having to defend my practice, the ongoing interaction is hard to manage...it was similar to the communications with the placement”. That is consistent with my experience of the Father’s dealings with the court. I have made reference to the number of “applications” he has made but there has also been a significant volume of correspondence directed to me and I am also aware to HMCTS. The Guardian said Cafcass and the Local Authority can put strategies in place to respond but “if you bombard the placement you risk them giving notice, it’s stressful, difficult to manage and that would be awful for C. It is a high risk because it’s a pattern of behaviour that has happened over quite some time with professionals”. She went on to say “You can’t explore it with him, his understanding or his motivations, the bigger issue is if a Care Order is made he will struggle to accept that and what that means for all professionals acting”.

[254]It is clear from this evidence that the placement stability is at risk by reason of the Father’s communications, that is akin to the foster placement in Re T. As noted in Re T there is no requirement for harassment to be intended, and I do not make that finding, but it is evidence of harassment. Further evidence comes from the operations director in relation to the Father’s behaviour at contact. I note that the Local Authority care plan is to move contact with the Father out of the placement and to a contact centre to mitigate this risk but it is evidence I can take into account in considering whether his conduct is such as to justify the making of an injunction as it is a predictor of likely future behaviour. The operations director says: [C323] During recent family visits at [former placement], C’s father has demonstrated repeated challenges by not adhering to house rules and expectations, creating difficulties for staff and potentially impacting other young people in the home. Key Issues Observed: 1. Disregard for Signing Protocols: o C’s father is consistently reluctant to sign in or out upon entering or leaving the premises. o This non-compliance complicates staff record-keeping and monitoring processes. 2. Disrespectful Behaviour Towards Staff: o He refuses to engage in any meaningful communication with staff. o When spoken to, he is often rude and dismissive, acting as if staff are not present in the building. o Staff feel very uneasy in his presence 3. Undermining of Staff Supervision: o On multiple occasions, he has whispered to C during contact to avoid being overheard by staff, o He has deliberately played music during visits, stating that he did not want staff to hear their conversations. o He shouted upstairs to C when she was not ready, with no regards to other young people in the home. 4, Disruptive Behaviour: o He has slammed doors within the home during visits, creating an unsettled atmosphere. 5. Inappropriate Conversations and Influencing Comments: o C’s father has on occasion asked her to walk to his car, where he continued private conversations away from staff supervision. o During these interactions, he made concerning comments, including:

“A unit had been moved—did you smash it up and burn it?” “You're free to leave at any time.” “I’m being kicked out now.”

[255]I also consider the Guardian’s oral evidence on the Father “using C as a means of trying to control a situation”. She was referred to two instances of F seeking C’s consent in furtherance of an objective of his. First, the Local Authority referred her to the Father’s “application” (not issued as no fee paid) for permission to record the final hearing. On 29 July 2025 the Father uploaded seven unissued applications to the portal. The last, uploaded at 12.03, said that “Both the mother and the child support the father’s reasonable adjustment.” On 1 August 2025 the Father sent an email to the court indicating he would record the hearing and that he had the Mother and C’s consent. He attached the following document which was dated 19 July 2025 and appeared to have been written by C, it ended with her name which I have removed:

[256]When asked about this the Guardian said: I think it’s harmful to C particularly as it hasn’t been allowed [recording] and it’s using C as a means of trying to control a situation but it’s difficult to know how C would deal with that discussion, I don’t think it’s something C should be involved in and I have always worried about how F influences C’s views whether directly or indirectly during contact, whether C is giving consent actually or feels pressure, I don’t think it’s acceptable to put her in that position in a time that is stressful for her [ie in the lead up to the final hearing].

[257]I then asked her about a series of emails from the Father to the operations director of the placements. In an email dated 21 July 2025 he said “I have raised a valid SAR [subject access request] with [the placement] and provided written consent from my child” [C350]; the written consent is not in the bundle but it would certainly be consistent with the above evidence for it to have been obtained. The Guardian said: It seems to fit his agenda, this isn’t what C wants, C is not saying she wants her file, it’s what F wants, and it feels like C is being used to fit in with what F wants She hasn’t said that to me, not something she’s talked about as her priority and I worry about what that means for her, she’s being embroiled in wider issues I don’t know how he obtained her consent I would agree it’s likely to have been via indirect contact

[258]I asked if she had factored it in to her view on the Father’s indirect contact, she had not, she said that I could order no indirect contact but was concerned how that might be enforced. It seemed to me one possibility might be by way of an extension to the Non-Molestation Order the Local Authority were inviting me to make and she said: It has been a concern to me, there is an obvious disdain for professionals and I worry if all his means of control are taken away [ie a Non-Molestation Order preventing contact with the placement and a section 91(14) Order limiting applications to court] I worry indirect contact will be the only means of influencing her and I worry what that will mean for C going forward, if it could be part of an order that could be helpful.

[259]On that evidence I conclude on the balance of probabilities that the Father has engaged in conduct that constitutes harassment; I accept the evidence of the operations director about the Father’s behaviour to them and in contact and on the Father’s own account I find he has sought to involve C in furthering his desire to record the hearing and obtain details about C held by the placement. I consider that calls for the intervention of the court: the continuation of the placement is threatened by the actions of the Father and it is not in C’s welfare interest for the Father to seek to involve her in “his agenda” to quote the Guardian.

[260]Since this is an order made in care proceedings I am mindful of the Father’s article 8 right to respect for private and family life, home, and correspondence. Any order I make interfering with that must be necessary and proportionate. For the reasons given I consider it necessary. As to proportionality I turn to the specific wording and in particular the restriction on the frequency of contact with the placement via the Local Authority. The Local Authority invite me to restrict this to 1 email per week and I do not consider this unduly harsh or restrictive, in circumstances where I am making a Care Order such frequent communication about the placement might be said to be generous, certainly it is proportionate to the risk identified by the evidence.

[261]In the circumstances I will make this order against the Father until C turns 18 or leaves her residential placement permanently pursuant to a change in her care plan whichever occurs first: 1) The Father must not harass or pester C’s placement or any staff at any placement where C is placed whether directly or indirectly including by email, letter, phone call or video call. 2) The Father must not communicate with the placement including by email, letter, phone call or video call. All communication shall be via the Local Authority limited to 1 email per week of not more than 1,000 words.

[262]The Local Authority invited me to make a zonal order restricting the Father’s attendance at any placement. I am conscious the Father did not have notice that the Local Authority would seek such order as it was not prefaced by anything in the Local Authority’s evidence and not referred to in the order listing this consideration at [B343]. In the circumstances I decline to make the order.

[263]As to restricting the Father’s indirect contact after a period of reflection the Local Authority ultimately did not invite me to extend any Non-Molestation Order to prevent indirect contact. The Mother remained neutral and, albeit considering it finely balanced, the Guardian supported it. For the reasons given above I assume the Father would oppose it.

[264]I note the provision of section 34(5) Children Act 1989: (5) When making a care order with respect to a child, or in any family proceedings in connection with a child who is in the care of a local authority, the court may make an order under this section, even though no application for such an order has been made with respect to the child, if it considers that the order should be made.

[265]By section 34(4) “the court may make such order as it considers appropriate with respect to the contact which is to be allowed between the child and that person.”

[266]In addressing me in closing submissions the Local Authority outline their rationale for not inviting any restrictions. First, because C communicates with her Father by telephone and perhaps via a gaming platform. If she were to send him a message and he felt obliged to reply there would be a breach. I do not consider that is strong factor against making the order, if the Father is served with the order he will know its terms. Second, the Local Authority were concerned how the order would be policed (the Guardian was keen for them not to be checking C’s phone). Again, I do not consider that a strong factor against making the order; the fact it is hard to police is irrelevant to whether it should be made, it is designed to be preventative in the first instance and in any event the Local Authority agreed they would be keeping indirect contact under review so to the extent monitoring compliance with a Non-Molestation Order is difficult so is reviewing the nature of the contact without an order being in place. Third, the Local Authority were concerned whether it would be in C’s welfare interest for the Father to be arrested and prosecuted in the event of a breach. That would be a matter out of the Local Authority’s hands but it seems unlikely C or the Father would report a breach so if anyone was going to it would be the Local Authority and no doubt could consider at that point whether it is in C’s welfare interest to do so. Lastly, they were concerned how such an order might be viewed by C and that it might be communicated negatively to C by the Father (perhaps along the lines of “they are now saying they are going to arrest me if I contact you”). Since the rest of the Father’s communication is supervised that should not happen in direct contact and indirect contact would be prohibited by the order. The related concern is how C may view the order when, as she must be, she is informed of the restriction. This can be mitigated by a careful, age-appropriate explanation to her, just as the making of a Care Order will need to be explained and as the change in contact arrangements for the Father will have been (i.e. his contact moving from the placement to a contact centre).

[267]I canvassed with the Local Authority whether an application could be made by them to discharge the order if it was in due course appropriate and Ms Flowers suggested an application under section 34 to vary the contact restriction at the same time, the court being seised of the matter, the Non-Molestation Order could be varied or discharged.

[268]During a short adjournment when hearing submissions Ms Honeyman took instructions on the above points. The Guardian’s position was put in this way: The pros [to making an order] are very important, during hearing she has been thinking about how F can be controlled because he has huge influence on C and talks to her a lot about his narrative and she worries about that undermining C’s placement and her progress and with the order in place there will be less chance of that and C’s ability to trust professionals, if F continues to undermine that, it would feed into her narrative of not being able to trust others and creates a barrier to C’s engagement and her progress with implications for her mental health if she cannot settle in the placement

[269]As noted above the Guarding thought it finely balanced but supported the making of an order under section 34 and an allied Non-Molestation Order.

[270]I consider such orders are necessary and proportionate. It is in C’s welfare interest to make both orders to avoid the risks identified by the Guardian. It will be open to the Local Authority to apply to discharge both orders in the event they consider indirect contact can resume in C’s welfare interest and the concerns raised by the Local Authority are not such as to tip the balance the other way. The terms of the section 34 Order and mirror Non-Molestation Order shall be: 3) The Father must not indirectly communicate with C including by email, letter, phone call or video save via the Local Authority.

[271]Since the Non-Molestation Order must be served on the Father to be effective (FPR 10.6) and because there have been issues with serving the Father (he has refused to accept service by email, and withdrew implied permission to the Local Authority to enter the boundary of his property to personally serve or post documents through the letterbox) I will direct substituted service pursuant to FPR 6.19 by Royal Mail tracked delivery with the Local Authority to file a certificate of service attaching the delivery receipt.

Section 91(14) Order

[272]The Local Authority invite me to consider making an order under section 91(14) Children Act 1989 restricting the Father from applying for a discharge of the Care Order or for an order for contact until C reaches 18. The making of such an order is supported by the Guardian, she said in evidence that if a Care Order is made the Local Authority will be able to make decisions for C independently and she worries that will prompt the Father to make applications as a way of making changes for C that he felt was best for her but she could not see how C could settle “if we were constantly coming back” to court. The Mother’s position is neutral. The Father is presumed to oppose the making of the order but as above did not remain in the hearing on 14 August 2025 to make submissions or state his position.

[273]In support of the Guardian’s analysis I note that of the 43 “applications” filed from 1 July to 12 August 2025 the majority were for case management orders or reasonable adjustments by way of participation directions. However, two were for capacity reports of C, one was for disclosure from the placement, one was for an assessment of A and her husband prior to the final hearing and one was to vary contact between him and C. There is a legitimate concern that absent an order under section 91(14) there will be “endless unproductive applications and/or a campaign of harassment by the absent parent” which is not in the interests of C but also a detriment to “all those other children whose cases are delayed as court lists are clogged up” to adopt the words of King LJ in Re A (Supervised Contact)(s91(14)) (see above). Whilst I have refused to formally consider the unissued applications each has required reading, digesting and reflection and HMCTS staff time has been taken up processing them. All of that time could have been used meeting the needs of other children within the family justice system. I am in absolutely no doubt that a section 91(14) Order is necessary and proportionate to protect C and in her welfare interest and to enable the court to most effectively discharge its duties to other children. I acknowledge that the terms of such an order will be such that applications cannot be made “without the court’s permission” and the court will need to engage with requests for permission but the time taken to do so should be less than otherwise would be required (I would hope it might deter unmeritorious requests from the Father and if not then consideration might be given to the making of a Civil Restraint Order) and the parties’ time will not be taken up because they will not be notified of the application unless the court is considering giving permission and an oral hearing is listed.

[274]Accordingly, I will order that the Father may not apply to discharge the Care Order or make an application for contact without the permission of the court until C reaches 18 and any request for permission will be considered on the papers and the parties shall not be notified of any request for permission unless the court, upon review of the papers, considers an oral hearing is necessary to determine the request.

Conclusion

[275]In light of the above analysis I make a final Care Order pursuant to section 31 Children Act 1989 and approve the care plan. I approve the care plan in respect of contact arrangements.

[276]This has been a challenging and lengthy case for the reasons set out above. I have no doubt it placed great strain on the social work team and Cafcass. Whilst they are “doing their job” it would be remiss of me not to praise Ms Rosier, Ms Demerdjiev, Ms Arnold, Ms Sutherland (the former Guardian) and Ms Morreale for their perseverance and resilience in doggedly focusing on what is best for C. I would be grateful if Cafcass could pass this comment to Ms Sutherland and for the avoidance of doubt, given she has left the service, give permission to share this information.

[277]The end of a judgment is always an opportunity to step back, reflect and, ideally, offer hope. In this case whilst the decision I have made is wholly contrary to the strongly held views of C and her Father I have done my very best to focus on what is right for C. I have written a letter to C which I hope will help her to understand, if not agree, with my decision and I sincerely hope she will engage with the plan to enable her to make progress in getting better. In that I offer her my very best wishes.

[278]Unusually, I end with a message to the Mother, reminding her of something that Ms Laulik-Walters said in her evidence on day one:

“M is absolutely crucial to C’s recovery”

. She is quite right. I encourage her to fully engage with the plan to get C well again so she can fulfil her full potential. That may mean sacrifices, almost certainly separating from F and engaging in some reflective work or therapy to adjust her style of parenting to match C’s needs, but it would be wrong to finish without paying tribute to the obvious love and desire to try and do what is best for C that has characterised her parenting to date. The fact I have made the order I have does not mean she has failed, but it does mean she needs support to be fully effective. I earnestly hope she feels able to seek out and act on that for C’s benefit and her own. Letter to C His Honour Judge Richard Case 3 September 2025 Dear [], I am the judge who has been deciding where you should live until you turn 18 next year. I want you to hear directly from me what decision I have made and why. I know that this has been a long and very difficult process for you; it must have been hard being at the centre of it all. Thank you for taking the time to write to me. You have been very clear in expressing your wishes. You told me you feel sad all the time and that you are only happy when you are with your family but the time with them is too short. You told me you will return home when you turn 18 and that you do not feel you are getting the right support in placement and that you want your dog with you. You either want to return home or live with your sister. Your views could not be clearer to me, they are obviously strongly held and I gave them significant weight. I want to reassure you that the Guardian (Leeanda Morreale) also passed on your views clearly saying you continually report wanting to return to your parents’ care and that you do not like living in your residential placement and that you would make better progress at home. She told me that you have a sense you have no control over your life and are not being listened to. Leeanda also told me you love animals, you find them very therapeutic, you have a good sense of humour and are very able which is why you are very frustrated feeling like your life is out of your control. I want to reassure you I have listened and thought very carefully about what is right over the past months and most recently in court from 4-15 August and whilst preparing my written judgment. I have a responsibility to make a decision that is in your “best interests”. That involves weighing up competing evidence. The professionals have told me that whilst you are dearly loved by your mum and dad the way things were at home made it hard for you to get the help you needed and they are worried that if you went home now you might become unwell again and the progress you have made may be lost. I know you disagree but their views are also important and sometimes those with experience of young people in situations like yours have a better overall view of what is best. You have made progress in your placement even though you have not felt it is the right place for you. That tells me you have the ability to grow and learn and become independent and that is something I want to protect. Weighing all the evidence in the balance I have decided I should make a Care Order and that you should stay in a residential placement for now. Your dad does not agree and I know you do not agree. Your mum originally told me she did not agree but after she heard the evidence she came to the very brave decision that it might be the right thing for you. I know that your mum has been a tremendous support for you and that will continue. I hope that knowing she can see this may be the right plan will help you to accept it too. I know that you have been very unwell and are still recovering but the report from Great Ormond Street Hospital says you have many strengths, you are bright, cognitively able and have positive interests and a sense of your future with a strong sense of what is right and wrong. From other things I have read you clearly love your family and pets very deeply and you are resilient. These are wonderful qualities to possess and there is every reason to hope that with the right care and with the support of your family and professionals alongside you will get better and live a full and exciting life. If you are unclear about anything that I have written I encourage you to speak to your social worker. Lastly I want to wish you well in your recovery and all the very best for the future. Yours sincerely, His Honour Judge Richard Case Family Court at Slough

Order

Threshold Conditions)

[1994] 2 FLR 577

) but subsequent events and behaviour are capable of providing relevant evidence about the position before the relevant date (Re L (Care: Threshold Criteria)

[2007] 1 FLR 2050

). Order: Jurisdiction)

[1998] Fam 70

[1998] 2 WLR 599

[1998] 1 FLR 554

: ‘…There is no legal definition of “molestation”. Indeed, that is quite clear from the various cases which have been cited. It is a matter which has to be considered in relation to the particular facts of particular cases of harassment of the other party, so as to justify the intervention of the court.’ [26] In C v C

[2001] EWCA Civ 1625 (unreported)

25 October 2001, Hale LJ (as she then was) held that the granting of a non-molestation injunction was justified in circumstances where the conduct complained of ‘was calculated to cause alarm and distress to the mother’. [27] In the decades that have followed those judicial utterances, those sitting in the Family Court have, on a day-by-day, case-by-case basis, deployed good sense and judgment in determining whether or not particular conduct amounts to ‘molestation’. In my view this court should continue to be very wary of offering any further precision in the definition. … [39] Looked at on a wider basis, it must be the case that, for s 42(2)(b) to operate, there will always be some other application in ‘family proceedings’ before the court, on the back of which the court will have jurisdiction to consider making a non-molestation order for the benefit of a child even if there has been no formal application made for one under the FLA 1996. The provision in s 42(2)(b) is there to supplement the jurisdiction of the court in other family proceedings (for example under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 or the Adoption and Children Act 2002) where, because the non-molestation jurisdiction is confined to the FLA 1996, there is no other power to make a non-molestation order backed up with the criminal sanction now contained in s 42A(1) … [42] When determining whether or not particular conduct is sufficient to justify granting a non-molestation order, the primary focus, as established in the consistent approach of earlier authority, is upon the ‘harassment’ or ‘alarm and distress’ caused to those on the receiving end. It must be conduct of ‘such a degree of harassment as to call for the intervention of the court’ (Horner v Horner

[1982] Fam 90

[1982] 2 WLR 914

(1983) 4 FLR 50

and C v C (Non-Molestation Order: Jurisdiction)

[1998] Fam 70

[1998] 2 WLR 599

[1998] 1 FLR 554

). Although in C v C the phrase ‘was calculated to cause alarm and distress’ was used, none of the authorities require that a positive intent to molest must be established. … [44] The jurisdiction under Part 4 of the FLA 1996 aims to protect a victim from molestation, rather than, as would be the case under the criminal law, to convict and punish a perpetrator. The statutory requirement in s 42(5), which does not make any reference to the intention of the respondent, is for the court to have regard to all the circumstances ‘including the need to secure the health, safety and well-being’ of the applicant or a relevant child. Section 91(14) Order