London Borough of Havering v Father & Anor [2024] EWFC 433 (B)

[2024] EWFC 433 (B)

Case No ZE23C50255

IN THE EAST LONDON FAMILY COURT

Date Tuesday, 8 th October 2024

Courtroom No. 3

6 th and 7 th Floor

11 Westferry Circus

London

E14 4HD

Before

HER HONOUR JUDGE SUH

B E T W E E N:

LONDON BOROUGH OF HAVERING

FATHER AND MOTHER

MS S HINE appeared on behalf of the Applicant

MS A PONTING appeared on behalf of the Respondent Mother

MS R WILSON appeared on behalf of the Respondent Father

MR H DRAYTON appeared on behalf of the Children

JUDGMENT

(Approved)

This Transcript is Crown Copyright. It may not be reproduced in whole or in part, other than in accordance with relevant licence or with the express consent of the Authority. All rights are reserved.

This judgment was delivered in private. The judge has given leave for this version of the judgment to be published on condition that (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, must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so will be a contempt of court..

Between

London Borough of HaveringClaimant

Respondent MotherDefendant

Respondent FatherDefendant

HHJ SUH:

[1]Today I am concerned with C, D, E and F. Their welfare is my paramount consideration.

[2]The boys’ early years were spent in [another country] with their mother, father and a group of 14 siblings. The family has moved between [another country] and the UK. The father and the children moved to the UK in 2020 and lived in several properties in the London area. There have been no previous proceedings about the family, but the boys and the father have been known to [redacted] social services. That is captured in the threshold document.

[3]These proceedings started after, on 19 June 2023, F was caught smoking in the toilets at school. He said he was doing so because he wanted to die. He said his father had been physically abusing him. The police and the social workers attended the school, and the father arrived wanting to have the children returned to his care. The situation became heated and the father and C were both arrested and charged with criminal offences arising out of those incidents. The children were placed in police protection.

Background

[4]By way of background, a child protection medical was undertaken in June 2023 of F, and F has done an interview the police in which he repeated his allegations. The father has also been interviewed by the police and denied the allegations.

[5]By way of procedural chronology, an application was made for an emergency protection order on 22 June 2023. This was extended to 4 July 2023. On 30 June 2023, an application was made for interim care orders; and an interim care order made for the youngest three boys; and an interim supervision order for C. On 24 July, Recorder Anderson ordered toxicology testing, instructed a paediatrician for F and a psychiatrist for C.

[6]There was a case management hearing on 1 August 2023. In November 2023, the social worker’s final evidence proposed a supervision order for the oldest three boys and a care order for F. The mother made, in December, an application for contact which was adjourned generally with liberty to restore. The matter was listed on 2 February 2024 as an early final hearing/ issues resolutions hearing, but appears to have been treated by the Recorder as a further case management hearing.

[7]The application by the father for alternative carers in [ a country in the Middle East] to be assessed was adjourned generally with liberty to restore, and the mother’s application for contact was also adjourned generally with liberty to restore.

[8]Questions were put to the independent social worker and to Dr Wolfson.

[9]The proceedings have been re-timetabled on more than one occasion due to delay in the experts’ reports. By April 2024, the Local Authority plan was for the older three children to be in their father’s care under a supervision order, and I asked the Local Authority to spell out what support would be offered to the family so I could better understand their care plan.

[10]I directed a transcript of the ABE evidence that F had provided, and case-managed the matter to a rolled up final hearing which was listed in October 2024. In May 2024, the Local Authority filed their statement setting out the support that the boys could be offered. On 3 July 2024, I set aside court time for an interim placement hearing. This was not effective because the father was due in the Criminal Court that day and the transcript of the ABE evidence had been delayed and only recently given to the parties. I stressed how important it was to understand if F would be required to give evidence in the Criminal Courts, which is a vital component of the Re W

[2010] UKSC 12

analysis.

[11]On 24 July 2024, there was a non-compliance hearing relating to the police and CPS disclosure. On 9 September 2024, the matter was listed for a pre-trial review. I also was going to consider interim placement and the Re W application on that occasion.

[12]It became clear just before that hearing that the criminal matter had now provided a timetable for F to give evidence. There was a ground rules hearing listed on 14 November 2024; a recording of his evidence on 21 November 2024; and the trial listed for three to four days on 24 February 2025. During that hearing, I was sent a revised statement by the social work team saying that they could not formulate a care plan before the criminal case was completed. The Guardian and the Local Authority on that occasion asked me to adjourn the entirety of proceedings for all boys until after the criminal trial, and their back-up position was to try and resolve matters for the older children in October, and then await the outcome of the criminal trial to make a decision for F.

[13]The parents submitted at that hearing it was an integral part of the father’s Article 6 rights to allow F to answer questions and give evidence in some form in the Family Court and the father sought the immediate return of D and E. I declined to return the boys on that occasion when the father’s acceptance of the other aspects of the threshold, quite apart from F, remained unclear and I took the view there needed to be a properly thought out plan for their return if that was the decision of the Court in due course. I declined to adjourn all of the proceedings until March 2025, but acknowledged that resolving matters for D and E was the least worst option rather than being the ideal and I made it clear I kept an open mind about whether there was a need to adjourn all the proceedings until after the criminal matter.

[14]There was a pre-trial review on 20 September 2024. The father overslept and joined towards the end of that, and a threshold document was presented to me with the order as agreed.

[15]The father’s answers in the witness box caused me to question whether all of that document was indeed accepted. I therefore gave Ms Wilson permission to speak to the father overnight after his evidence had finished, and alert to me whether he needed to be, in fairness, asked any more questions about that document. However, she did not seek to recall him.

The parties’ submissions and positions

[16]The Local Authority ask for a care order for D and E. That would be based at the foster carer and have weekend contact until the trial had finished. The Local Authority would then apply for a supervision order after the trial in February 2025. If they were to return home now, the Local Authority think it should be under a supervision order. They ask for a supervision order for C for 12 months. The social worker says that her view is C should be subject to a 12-month supervision order because of his additional needs and the criminal trial outstanding. The mother did not object to a supervision order for C. She was strongly of the view that D and E should go home now, and that it was emotionally harmful for both boys and C for them to remain in foster care. She stresses how the children being at home allowed them to maintain links with the family in [ a country in the Middle East] and highlighted the difficulties that have occurred throughout these proceedings with her being sent the link in a timely manner. Difficulties with her contact, indeed, have been an ongoing theme of these proceedings. I know she misses her children and loves them immensely. She would not oppose a supervision order made for the younger two children now, but she is clear she wants them home by half-term.

[17]The father’s counsel, in submissions, did not seek the conclusion of the proceedings for the boys but the father is very clear he wants D and E home under any legal framework the Court thinks fit. On his behalf, Ms Wilson pointed out what she called the excruciating harm they faced being in foster care, and said it was no longer justified to keep them separated from their father when there was a positive parenting assessment and he was willing to work with the social workers.

[18]The Guardian’s primary position was that D and E should remain with the foster carers under an interim care order and spend weekends at home. She says that the work recommended by the experts needed to be done, and the outcome of the criminal trial needed to be known before they could return home. Mr Drayton submitted that everyone wanted the children to be united, but there were concerns around the timing and safety. On balance, the Guardian supported a supervision order for C now, but accepted that the decision between an interim supervision order or a final one was a very finely balanced decision.

Procedure

[19]Looking at procedure, we have had interpreters for both parents throughout, and all witnesses have been offered breaks when giving evidence.

[20]Of course, I have to resolve proceedings justly, having regard to any welfare issues involved and that, of course, gives me the power to decide promptly the procedure to be followed in each case and identify which issues should be determined at an earlier stage.

[21]I have the powers under Family Procedure Rule 22 to control the evidence and to give directions about the issues on which I require evidence, the nature of the evidence required to decide those issues and the way in which the evidence should be placed before the Court. I think that this was a case in which I needed to hear oral evidence, not least because there was an update about how the first weekend sleepover at the father’s house for D and E went and it was only right that the father heard in evidential form that update and had a chance to respond. I have focused on those issues which do not touch on the physical abuse allegations. Ms Wilson alerted me again at the beginning of this hearing of the need to make sure we did not stray beyond the remit of what could be determined at this juncture, and I was reassured that she would object to any line of questioning that she felt overstepped the mark. In the event, she did not feel the need to do so. Law

[22]In relation to the law, of course I can only interfere with the family and private life to the extent that it is necessary and proportionate under Article 8. Under Article 6, of course the father needs an opportunity to challenge F’s evidence and the children, of course, need to have a voice in these proceedings themselves, whether or not they are giving evidence. Of course it is right to remember, as Ms Wilson does, both Article 8 and Article 6. However, that is a live issue that I am not yet able to resolve.

[23]I remind myself of the no delay principle, and it is with this firmly in mind that the Court wanted to hear evidence to see if a final order could be made for some of the boys at this juncture. I remind myself of the no order principle, that I must not make an order for the boys unless it is better than making no order at all. Of course it is their welfare that is my primary concern. I am very mindful in this case of the clock ticking for these proceedings and the fact that I should only extend the timetable if it is necessary for the Court to resolve proceedings justly.

[24]I must specifically consider the impact that an extension of timetable has on the welfare of the children and the conduct of the proceedings, and any extension to a court timetable is not routine but requires specific justification.

[25]For F, it is common ground that the Court cannot resolve matters whilst he is actively involved in giving evidence in the Criminal Court. However, for the other children, it is a more delicate balance.

[26]Since one option before the Court is to maintain an interim order, I have reminded myself of the case of Re C

[2023] EWHC 345 (Fam)

. This is a case in which some of the evidence is in final form and we have expert assessments such as a positive independent social worker.

[27]I have also had evidence from the Local Authority and the Guardian about the steps that could be taken to support the family if the children returned to the family home.

[28]Therefore this is not a case where the Local Authority have failed to provide the resources that may be needed. The resources are there, and the Local Authority and the Guardian say they need to be deployed as the foundation for the return of the children to their father’s care.

[29]However, what of course the Court cannot resolve at this interim basis is the truth of the allegations made by F and therefore accurately assess the extent of risk, if any, to the children’s physical and emotional welfare in the light of that.

[30]I remind myself that this final hearing was originally listed for a longer time estimate so that the independent social worker or Dr Wolfson could have been called, as could the original social worker and the witnesses to the school incident in June 2023. They have not been challenged. Nevertheless, many of the notes in the bundle are hearsay, which means that their makers have not been called to give evidence and have not been cross-examined. I remind myself of the weaknesses of that type of evidence and that the weight to be attached to it is a matter for the Court.

Oral evidence

[31]I will summarise the oral evidence that was given. The social worker gave a clear and balanced account. She gave credit to the father for his clean house. She gave credit to him for the changes he had made and his willingness to work with her. She did not exaggerate the fact that the beds were not ready on the day before the children’s visit, or that the father was asleep when she visited during the first family weekend sleepover. She took the view that the concerns about the father sleeping were manageable and she would seek to work with the father. However, she did maintain the view that C and D should not be returned home to him until the criminal trial had completed.

[32]The thrust of the Local Authority evidence was that the risk cannot be fully and finally managed until there is a resolution of these factual issues.

[33]The father was very clear that being separated from his boys for a year and four months has had a huge impact on the family. He explained to me the importance of the family in [ a country in the Middle East]ian culture, and how hard it was for the boys to be apart. He was defensive at times, but it was clear that these proceedings have had a really significant impact on him and his children and their bonds with their family in [ a country in the Middle East]. I think he was very eager to try and help the Court.

[34]Sometimes his written evidence was different from his oral evidence, for example, about who would care for the boys if he received a custodial sentence. However, I do not think that is because he is trying to mislead me; rather I think he was wanting to show the Court that he really would do anything to have the boys home.

[35]The Guardian was clear and child-focused. She maintained her view it would be best for the children’s return home to await the final outcome of the criminal case, and said it was finely balanced as to what decision to make for C now. She had seen the children four times and clearly considered them both as a group and also as individuals. If the Court disagreed with her, her firm view was that the children should be returned home under an ICO and not under a final order. She did however explore alternatives very thoroughly in her evidence.

The children’s wishes and feelings

[36]D was first seen by the social workers in June 2023 and what he told them is set out in the first statement. He said there are arguments between the siblings, but there are not fights. He described his father as loving and caring. He says that when he does not follow boundaries, he gets scolded, his phone taken away or sent to his room. He maintained that he liked being at home, and he has held this view throughout proceedings. His learning mentor had a phone call with the foster carers on 20 September 2024. She records that the foster dad shared that “D told him he doesn’t want to return to live with Dad, but he’s scared to say this to anyone”. He said, “D shared that the boys used to fight all the time when he lived at home, and he’s scared of his older brother whom they call ‘Fat Boy’”. The foster mum says that she is really worried about the boys, and feels “D’s mood has really declined recently”. The learning mentor observed that he appeared quiet and withdrawn and not his usual bubbly self. When the social worker spoke to D following that, at school, he said there had been a misunderstanding and he had not said those things to the foster carer.

[37]The Guardian suggests in her final analysis that D’s views need to be explored more, and that returning D home without any further planning could cause him to withdraw.

[38]C has been consistent in his view that he is happy living with his father and wishes to remain in his care. In September this year, he said he “feels mad and sad” at being separated from his brothers and wants them to come home. Although C is the oldest of the boys, his understanding of the issues may be less developed than that of his brothers. He has significant learning difficulties and throughout these proceedings he has been very clear that he is loyal to his father and wants his brothers home.

[39]E has maintained throughout these proceedings that he would like to go home to the care of his father.

[40]F’s wishes and feelings have been less consistent than those of his brothers, and have varied at times in what he has said to various people, with a degree of ambiguity and ambivalence throughout.

The children’s physical, emotional and educational needs

[41]At the time of the interim care order application, C’s school attendance was around 40.7 per cent. C had clearly been struggling with school. Dr Wolfson’s report dated 21 October highlights why. “He has significant learning difficulties which have impeded on his educational progress, leaving him behind”, Dr Wolfson says, “the expected level for his age”. He suggested that a deeper cognitive evaluation was needed in English and [ another language], a speech and language assessment in English and [ another language] at home. The social worker will need to chase the assessment that has been carried out so far. There also, says Dr Wolfson, needs to be an occupational therapy assessment. This referral, too, needs to be chased up until C is offered the support he needs.

[42]The expert recommends that there needs to be an EHCP plan. He says, “In my view, C is so academically behind, he will not manage in mainstream school with so little time left to his compulsory education. He may need specialist, small-group teaching”.

[43]The report carried out by Dr Myttas thinks that a diagnosis of global developmental delay was appropriate.

[44]Dr Matthew Fuller then carried out an EHCP care needs assessment in November 2023 and that highlights C’s difficulties with literacy in both [ another language] and English, his limited reading skills, difficulty with concentration, trouble in storing and recalling information and struggling with social cues, reading facial expressions and initiating and maintaining friendships. He has been at the [name of school redacted] since November 2023, and their update in the bundle is that he finds emotional regulation difficult and can be reactive to what goes on around him. He now has an EHCP in place and the final social worker evidence suggests he has a good relationship with his learning mentor. These proceedings have, in my view, meant that C’s needs have now been more fully understood and that targeted efforts have been made to help him. Emotionally, Dr Wolfson highlights how C can experience strong emotions. He can lose his temper quickly and be physically violent, as the threshold finds.

[45]D was attending school for 96.4 per cent of the time when these proceedings began. Dr Wolfson highlights there are concerns about his development, including the impact of the separation from his mother and siblings in [ a country in the Middle East] and the current separation from his father.

[46]In relation to E, Dr Wolfson says he struggles educationally and requires some support with his learning, but also requires pastoral support. His peer relationships are fragile and he wants to be returned now, records Dr Wolfson.

[47]F is making good academic progress and his teacher reported that he shows a different attitude to himself and to school compared to when he went into foster care. They say, when speaking to Dr Wolfson, that they have no concerns about him at the moment.

[48]School for D and E is over an hour’s drive, I think, from the foster carer’s, and this is a tiring journey for them. It also means that they are unable to meet up with friends after school and at weekends, and are missing out on some of the social aspects of secondary school and the growing independence it gives young people.

[49]Emotionally, these boys have a strong attachment to their father and identify strongly with all their family. Of course, when I look at their needs, they need to be physically safe and to have their basic care needs met.

[50]I look at the likely effect on them of any change of circumstance, and these boys have had a great amount of change throughout their formative years. They have had a change of country; a change of schools; a change of housing; a change from living all together with their family to living with their father; to three of them being removed to foster care. D was separated from his younger brothers for a different foster placement for 10 days, and that must have been a very dramatic and distressing change of circumstance for him. They have now had a change of foster placement, of social worker and Guardian throughout these proceedings. The return of D and E and an increase of their time with their father without F there would be a change of circumstances again for all of them, and of course a difference in treatment for F. The foster carers reported back that the first weekend sleepover went well and the boys seemed calm and content throughout the weekend. F understood why his brothers were going for a sleepover, and had plans to go swimming at the weekend. The Guardian’s view was that the change for F would be something he would emotionally struggle with, as he has always had his brothers around him, if they were to return to their father’s care without him. She says he would feel singled out or might blame himself because he has only ever known growing up with his brothers.

[51]When I look at change for the boys, a return home and then a removal again if their father was faced with a custodial sentence, or indeed for any other reason, would be very destabilising. The foster carers who currently look after the boys may no longer be able to assist.

[52]The father’s written evidence suggests that [ a country in the Middle East] would be an option for the boys, should be convicted and sentenced to a period in custody. However, that would be a very dramatic change, and the mother would be unlikely to be able to come to the UK. The father also suggested a friend could look after the boys, the same friend who looked after them when he was in hospital. This was mentioned in the witness box. However, the friend was not named and has not been put forward before now.

[53]The professional view is that the change of circumstances of a permanent return back home needs to await the outcome of the trial in the Criminal Court.

[54]In my view, any change for the boys in the future needs to be built on the firmest possible foundations, given the amount of change that they have had to negotiate in the past. Removal from their father’s care again, once returned, would be particularly damaging, in my view.

[55]For C, a change of circumstances that removes him from his father’s care would be particularly impactful but, if the father were to be imprisoned, it seems to me that there is no realistic option other than foster care. However, I do not think C has sufficient understanding for this to be explained directly to him at this stage.

The children’s age, sex and background

[56]I look at the children’s age, sex and background, and any other characteristics that are relevant.

[57]The children are in London, but are part of a bigger sibling group.

[58]The mother also cares for children who are the father’s from a former marriage.

[59]The family are Muslim and the children have told the foster carer how important their faith is to them. They are of [ a country in the Middle East]ian heritage, and the children speak both [ another language] and English and their cultural and heritage identity is important to them. Dr Wolfson concludes that the sibling bond is such that they have strong affectionate bonds with each other, and these bonds are important to each of them. Their sibling relationship plays a positive role in their lives. There would be a positive impact on all children if they remained together, says Dr Wolfson, and a negative one if they were separated from each other.

[60]What comes through Dr Wolfson’s report so very clearly is the importance of family to C, D and E and how difficult it has been for them to be separated from their mother in [ a country in the Middle East], and for E and D to be separated from their father and older brother. There is also, when I look at this sibling group, an extent to which the boys may compete for attention from their father. The foster carer tells Dr Wolfson, “There’s a lot of conflict after contact. Dad gives them individual gifts and they compete against each other and they don’t share. There are always arguments so I take them to the park, but that happens every time and they only talk about what he gave them”. I think that is the first foster carer who reports that. This is consistent with some of the contact notes themselves. The contact supervisor in July 2023 had to intervene when F was upset about D eating his sandwich, and informed the father what happened. The father did not ask D to apologise or ask him why he ate F’s sandwich without asking.

[61]There is an incident in October 2023 where F is asked by his father to say who his favourite brother is and which brother loves him most, and D jokingly says he is. The contact supervisor intervenes to say it is not fair to film the boys and ask them who their favourite sibling is. The boys, on some contact notes, are not always treated equally so on one occasion F gets a £10 note but his brothers do not. The father himself refers in his conversation with Dr Wolfson to sibling rivalry and he says there are times when there are territory issues because they do not have their own rooms.

[62]When I look at the totality of the evidence, the boys do seem to sometimes vie for attention as one might expect with a large sibling group, but this is something that needs to be carefully managed so they do not perceive favouritism when I am sure they are all equally loved.

Any harm the children have suffered or at risk of suffering

[63]The harm that they have suffered in the past is captured in the threshold document, which includes the incident at the school in June 2023. This is something that D saw and that Dr Wolfson specifically records he was upset about.

[64]Of course, when I look at the harm that the boys have suffered, I am not in a position to conclude a determination of whether the father caused physical harm to F.

[65]Indeed there is no evidence to suggest that C, D or E have suffered physical harm from their father. Each of them strongly deny it when asked and offer different reasons why F may not be telling the truth about it. However, of course, if they witnessed F being physically chastised, that could be distressing for them and emotionally harmful.

[66]When I look at the risk of future harm, I of course am not yet in a position to calibrate any risk of emotional harm for the boys returning to the father if he had been physically abusive in the past and denies it, but I cannot close my eyes to the risk of future physical harm in the light of what F has said.

[67]I cannot quantify that risk pending the criminal trial and any future finding of fact. The independent social worker’s view is that the children are at significantly reduced risks now than before. The father demonstrated he is deeply committed to the children’s welfare and wishes to do all he can to safeguard and promote their welfare. The assessor’s view is that he is keen to learn new ways of parenting and participate in training that would be beneficial for him and his children. The assessor, of course, spoke to the father about physical chastisement and formed the following view, of course without making any finding one way or another: “I am confident he has developed good insight to address these issues and the risks of any such incidents reoccurring, in my professional opinion, is reduced”.

[68]No-one challenged the independent social worker evidence, but Mr Drayton, when he decided not to call the independent social worker, did so expressly on the basis that the independent social worker had not been able to address what he called “the elephant in the room”, namely that the criminal proceedings are now set for determination.

[69]Of course, as I have commented before, the independent social worker does not know the outcome of those, and neither do I.

[70]I look at the risk of emotional harm arousing out of the boys returning during this waiting period before the trial. In the agreed threshold document, the father accepted that he caused the children emotional harm by discussing proceedings with them which made them nervous and anxious. However, in the witness box, he did not agree with this so Mr Drayton took him to page E4 and paragraph nine where the Guardian, the first Guardian, at the initial supervised contact in June said that they had significant concerns about his interactions with the boys, specifically his putting pressure on them about court proceedings including to F about what he has alleged. “All three boys presented nervous, cowed and intimidated by this, with D in tears. The contact supervisor and I had to intervene repeatedly”. This was not the only time where professionals noted the father discussing aspects of the proceedings with the boys, and Mr Drayton also took the father to the independent social worker who was assessing the mother in [ a country in the Middle East] and their report. On calling back, the independent social worker said, “I overheard his father telling C that they were in a terrible situation and when I had heard that, he raised his eyebrows upwards, saying to his father that the video was now opened”. The father did not answer directly when this was put to him in the witness box, but rather set out a criticism of the independent social worker in [ a country in the Middle East] and said that she was making this up.

[71]When I look over the contact notes, though, there are other incidences where the father has been advised not to pressurise the children, for example in September 2023 when talking about the foster carer. In October 2023, the father asked lots of questions about the foster carer’s home, whether they were happy, whether they eat and sleep well.

[72]In April 2024, the supervisor advised the parents to stop questioning F as regards the case and where he wants to live. “It appeared to make F look uncomfortable. I advised the father this could be seen as intimidating”. The supervisor notes the father appeared to understand, and informed the mother. C, D and E all know about the criminal trial. The father gave evidence, “They’re all saying it’s lies” and C asks him about when the court is happening.

[73]This family have been through a very stressful time, and the social worker gave evidence that there is a risk of emotional harm if the boys are returned to their father’s full-time care whilst he is awaiting trial. The Guardian shared this concern about how the boys might hear things from their father and interpret his stress. There are, as I just pointed out, examples in evidence of the father speaking to the boys in a way that could be stressful for them. The social worker was concerned that, if the father discussed the trial with the boys, it might be difficult for them and be an added stress for the family.

[74]The father gave evidence that he was discussing with the boys their experience of the foster care that they had experienced when they came for their weekend sleepover. He said he would try to limit what he talked about and knows the red lines when it comes to discussing the criminal trial, but he does have strong views and the evidence suggests he cannot help at times but express them in front of the children.

[75]The family intervention session that the boys have recently attended was about apportioning blame, the social worker says, and the social worker took the view that blame could be a significant theme for this family in the coming months. Therefore this is a very delicate period, awaiting trial, when there is work going on and rebuilding the family dynamics during a difficult time when sensitive and difficult issues will be brought to the fore.

[76]The father, to his credit, has started his Living with Teenagers parenting course but this is very much work in progress and this is a time of rebuilding and waiting for the trial, to some extent. The evidence that Dr Wolfson has given is that he notes secure attachment between the boys and their father, when observing contact. He notes warm and supportive interactions but he also notes that it is likely that the father’s parenting behaviour at times puts their relationship with him under strain and causes them upset and distress. This was not challenged by the father, who could of course have called Dr Wolfson. I do need to look at, more broadly, any risk of harm arising from the father’s parenting methods. The father did not accept this observation of Dr Wolfson. He is open to doing further work, but he tended to speak about it in quite a generalised way rather than identifying specific things he wanted to change in his parenting. This led me to think that he may approach it in rather a theoretical way.

[77]The Guardian’s evidence was that she was worried about the extent to which the father can truly reflect on what has happened to the children and potentially what is to come, and whether he has truly thought about what might happen in criminal proceedings. In his written and oral evidence, he does not seem able to explore what would happen if he were found guilty in the criminal courts, regardless of what sentence might be imposed. In writing, he says, “I simply do not believe that this will happen”. He has done a parenting course. He is undoubtedly open to change, but how he parents all the boys in his care has yet to be tested. The professional view is that the return of all the boys to his care needs to be carefully built up.

[78]I look at the risk of harm to the boys arising out of the dynamic of their relationship as brothers. There are entries in the social work chronology suggesting that the boys can be physically aggressive. The first relates to 22 June 2022, when E was upturning furniture at school. Then there are two entries in relation to C in 2022 where firstly on 21 September, the [redacted] Council officers attended home to do an interview with C and he became verbally abusive and attempted to assault them. Police then attended. The view that they formed was that he was agitated, and his father had to go in between officers and him to calm him down. Later on in September 2022, C was aggressive and an ambulance was called. The father accepted in the threshold document that C was beyond parental control but when asked about this in the witness box, he minimised it and sought to justify what happened in June 2023.

[79]Of course he is right that C has global developmental delay and that this has not been diagnosed, I think, until these proceedings. He is now, of course, getting the support he needs under an EHCP plan. However, the father did have somewhat of an idealised view of C, saying he is “a calm, angelic person” and he did not accept that tempers might get raised at home.

[80]There is, of course, evidence in the bundle of C being kind and calm with his brothers in contact. He plays games with them, he goes to the shop to buy things for them and he clearly enjoys being with them. I agree with the Guardian that when is in a secure environment, he can manage his emotions and do better socially. However, his father’s demeanour seems very key to him being able to manage his own.

[81]It seems to me that there is still work to be done that might help C manage his emotions, particularly in the light of D’s most recent comments about his older brother, which the father does not accept. However, the theme of fractious behaviour between the boys is a long-running one in these proceedings. The first foster carer tells Dr Wolfson that “We’d found that E was hitting F when D arrived”. They describe D as quite temperamental. “He gets easily annoyed. If there’s something he doesn’t like he escalates the situation”.

[82]The Guardian’s initial analysis records the Guardian’s first conversation with the foster carer:

“The boys’ foster carer has raised concerns about the boys’ levels of aggression towards each other. She reports E hits F in the face, D has hit E in the eye and held a knife to F’s throat. There have been temper tantrums, running off and another child in placement was hurt by E”

. The Guardian’s own observations in her initial assessment in July 2023 is that “D and E chose to speak with me together, away from the foster carer and her family, but there was constant conflict between them with D belittling and humiliating E. That, of course, is not unusual sibling behaviour, but in the context, it is a concern that it is a habitual family behaviour and it did appear to upset E, although he tried to laugh it off”.

[83]The Local Authority records, at F176, that the boys moved to their second foster home and there were ongoing concerns about their behaviour between each other. At the April 2024 Looked After review, it is noted that “E can present as unpredictable and physical towards his siblings, particularly F. He refuses to take ownership of behaviour and will blame his brothers for it”. One of the foster carers shared that during swimming, E pushed F unprovoked and he (the foster carer) was in the pool, so instinctively intervened. If not, F was heading towards hitting his head on the edge of the pool.

[84]The April 2024 contact note shows the note that the supervisors made, that “F displayed aggressive behaviour towards D, wanting to punch him and kick him. C and the father hold F so he is not able to hit F. D sat close to me until F settled down. D seemed very quiet and in tears”. There is another contact session in May 2024, where the thin line between play-fighting and aggression is evident. The final social work statement highlights an incident in the foster home where E struck the male foster carer in July this year, and there was then a placement stability meeting following reports from the foster carers of siblings fighting.

[85]Most recently, there is the notes of the learning mentor dated 20 September where D is recorded as telling the foster carer that he is scared of his older brother. The father said that he did not believe that these were D’s words. It seems to me unlikely, however, that the adults he spoke to would have made up the report, although of course there is always the possibility when hearsay has been recorded that it has been misunderstood or inaccurately written down, and of course that reduces the weight that I can put on this particular evidence. However, the father was asked by Ms Hine about arguments and what happened at home. He said “It would never happen in my care”, and he minimised the concerns around fighting, saying it was play-fighting and he does his best to de-escalate it. His view was that most of the behaviour was due to being in foster care, and it would be better when the boys returned. He said, however, later in his evidence that he often had to intervene when the boys were fighting when they lived together, so his evidence on this point was shifting and left me unclear as to the extent to which he accepts that there is a dynamic between the boys which is at risk of being harmful and needs to be addressed.

[86]Therefore the risk of harm arising out of the dynamic of the boys’ relationship seems, to me, to be a longstanding one arising before they were taken into foster care and, indeed, continuing through their time in foster care. It could be said that that dynamic is the same whether they are in foster care or at home, and that even professional carers have not managed to address this. However, in foster care it has been documented and monitored, and the social worker has had oversight of the relationship between the boys. She said the carers have, on occasion, said that they struggled to manage the fighting between the children. The father has not reported any tension between them and when the social worker called during the first overnight contact, he was asleep suggesting he may not be monitoring relationships, or as alive to the risks as he could be. However, this dynamic is something that needs to be the subject of discussion and work in the therapeutic environment. Indeed, this is exactly what Dr Wolfson recommended. He said they would benefit from a joint discussion about inter-sibling bullying and violence led by an appropriate professional to develop their understanding of negative behaviour.

[87]The Families Together intervention will provide this expert assistance to the family in relation to these dynamics, and the first session has already taken place with D and E and F. C was unwell so he and the father could not attend. However, the evidence is, the social worker says, that this work will take around six months and there is some flexibility around it. The social worker evidence was that this is really important to address these family dynamics.

[88]When I look at harm to the children, of course there is harm arising from their being in foster care, and these children have been separated from their father for one year and four months. I have already referred to Dr Wolfson’s analysis of the bond between them, and of course this separation is emotionally harmful to them and deeply distressing. The evidence, looking back over these proceedings, was that they struggled to settle in their first placement and, indeed, in November 2023, E absconded from the foster carer at the end of the school day and went to his father’s home. Therefore, of course, there is a risk that the children could vote with their feet, as E did on that occasion. However, since moving placement, the boys do seem more settled. D and E maintain a wish to go home, but the Guardian reports she had seen them relaxed and happy, and that they have good memories of swimming and day trips.

[89]The father’s evidence was that it would not be traumatic for the children to be removed to foster care if they were returned to his care and he was later convicted because they know the carers. He accepted they were good carers, although of course it is not as good as being cared for by parents.

[90]The emotional harm from the separation of the boys is also something that I weigh very carefully in the balance. C’s previous school highlights, of course, that he is much younger developmentally than his chronological age, and so he in particular might struggle to grasp the emotional complexity of the situation and of course the complex progression of the court process. The social worker accepted it would cause C emotional distress if his brothers did not come home. In addition, of course, these children are part of a bigger sibling group, and it has been harmful for them to be separated from their larger group of brothers and sisters in [ a country in the Middle East] and not to be able to speak to them as frequently as they want. It is harmful for them all to be separated from each other as well, of course, as from their parents.

[91]In addition, for F, it is harmful for him, of course, to be separated from the two brothers he has never been separated from before now. The difficult truth today is, whatever I do, it is not possible for the entire family to be together.

How capable each of the parents are of meeting the children’s needs

[92]The wider family members have put themselves forwards to care for the children, and their primary position is that they support the father in caring for the children although remain willing to offer the children a home if needs be. The mother’s parenting assessment concluded she was not able to provide good enough parenting, and she supports the father in his position of wanting to care for the children in the UK. The independent social worker has provided a positive assessment of the father’s parenting ability but he does highlight the need for some extra work. He says there are cultural differences in terms of how a society responds to allegations of abuse and these have been discussed. There is room for further exploration. “I strongly recommend the father is offered bespoke training to explore these issues, along with other issues about parenting. In my professional opinion”, he concludes, “the father would benefit from practical support and guidance”. He recommends a bespoke parenting programme over six weeks to address specific issues. When recommending the children’s return home he says, “I add the caveat that there is the need for a supervision order to ensure the transition is smooth and that there is long-term stability as the father sets out his finances, income and housing, etc”. The work that the independent social worker has recommended is partially completed and, in my view, it is important that the therapeutic work and Parenting Teenagers course, which are vital to fulfil the recommendations of the experts in their entirety, are completed.

[93]The father’s housing needs to be fit for his health and it is also important that he has the benefits to which he is entitled. That is because the independent social worker records that he is diagnosed with chronic lower back pain, a dislocated right knee and his mobility is restricted. He also records the father has diabetes, a heart problem and is on medication for depression. The social worker gave evidence. She had not referred the father to a Care Act assessment by Adult Social Care, and the father gave evidence that his landlord had refused to assist him by having something fitted to the wall. He also has a specialist bed and lives downstairs, but gave evidence he can go upstairs to use the bathroom and make sure everything is clean and tidy. The father is on the standard level of PIP for both daily living and mobility and that suggests to me a level of functional impairment.

[94]During the first weekend sleepover on 22 September 2024, the social work team had an opportunity to see how things went for D and E. The social worker visited on the day before, 21 September 2024. “I observed the house to be clean, but it smelled of smoke. It seemed that someone was recently smoking cigarettes. I went upstairs. The bedframes and the mattresses were ready, but not set up”. The historical neglect concerns of the home environment set out in the threshold are relevant here and the social worker rightly was checking that the home was ready. The father blamed C for leaving upstairs untidy, in his written evidence, but the social worker said upstairs was not untidy. It was simply that the beds were not put together. She then called on the Friday evening when the boys had been picked up by their father from school. She said the boys were playing together, they were catching up. The father was asleep. The visit was between 6:00 and 6:30pm. “I asked the boys to wake Dad, and he told me he felt very tired”. This is against the backdrop of Father attending the hearing on 20 September late, due to oversleeping, which is out of character. “The school were trying to get hold of him in that last week after an incident with C”, said the social worker.

[95]On another occasion, the social worker was contacted by C’s school to say he had a half-day and they were not able to get hold of the father and C said he was probably asleep. C also reported to the social worker he got the bus one day himself but did not have a bus pass because the father was still asleep. Now, the father should not be criticised or judged if his physical or mental health makes life more challenging for him, but he should be supported and I think there needs to be a Care Act assessment to look at whether he has any other support needs. We might be assisted by a GP letter updating us of any recent diagnosis, prognosis and medication. His recent sleepiness is out of character and has the potential to impact on his ability to meet the boys’ needs.

[96]When I look at his ability to meet the boys’ needs, working with others is a key part of this. The father has accepted threshold, but it is noticeable, when I look back over the evidence, that he has not always been able to take on board criticisms that have been made of the family set-up. He told Dr Wolfson that “All complaints are baseless; these people are not living with us. Their information is false. I clean, I wash, I hoover, I put all my effort into cleaning and sanitising. These people have ripped my family apart for something that is not proven”. Indeed, in the witness box he seemed to distance himself from paragraph four of the threshold, which previously had been agreed.

[97]In relation to the incident in June 2023 at the school, Dr Wolfson notes the father’s view of the situation at the time of their interview. The father considers he is a victim of poor professional behaviour from school staff and police, and he is innocent of any fault during the incident. The social worker at the time reflects on this with Dr Wolfson saying, “The difficulty is the father tries to minimise everything, so he isn’t saying he needs help. When I suggest something to him, he says he doesn’t need it”. However, the father told Dr Wolfson, “I feel I can cope. I will accept any form of help. I’m open to it”. Dr Wolfson concludes there are a number of concerns relating to his willingness to adequately reflect on and evaluate his parenting skills.

[98]Therefore it is a real step forward, in my view, that the father has been able to accept the threshold document and things that he might have done differently. Some of the comments he has made in the past were before he had done a parenting course, so it is really important to acknowledge the change he has made during the course of these proceedings and the extent to which he has been able to reflect. It is immensely to his credit that alcohol use appears to no longer be an issue in this case. That is a real and meaningful change for which I give him full commendation. He has worked well with this social worker, and is willing to enter into a written agreement. Of course he has had the Positive Parenting assessment. He is willing to take on the recommendations of the work the experts say is needed, and he is open to learning and motivated to have all his children home.

[99]However, the father was still defensive at times in the witness box which leads me to think that he may need to keep working on developing his insight. It is important that he keeps working with others, and keeps reflecting because whatever order I make today, Social Services will remain, for the time being, involved in the family’s life. It is a real credit to the father that I think there has been a shift in his ability to work with others. For example, he was highly critical of the first foster carer, in conversation with Dr Wolfson and in contact sessions. Although he was still critical of that foster carer in the witness box, he was able to move on from this in his evidence.

[100]However, this is an important part of any transition plan that the foster carer checks in with the father over the weekend to see how the transition time is going and see how overnight contact is managed. The father likes this foster carer and called her “a very nice lady” and, to his credit, has worked well with her over the first weekend sleepover. It is also important he can work with people because the transition plan, whenever implemented, relies on him and the social worker being able to have weekly discussions about how things are going. The social worker gave evidence that he is co-operative. Although he wanted to postpone her visit, she did attend unannounced and was able to see him the weekend before the first sleepover. The social worker and the father have a good working relationship.

[101]It is important that the Court looks at the totality of the evidence because it is also clear that at times, such as in the March 2024 contact report, that the father can be dismissive of advice, for example from the contact supervisors, which in turn made C dismissive of them. They note that the father needs to be mindful in his co-operation to demonstrate his working with professionals and not against them. This is, of course, contrasted by the view of the independent social worker who said that the father showed genuine concern and appeared to be wanting the best outcome for his children. He now has the insight and understanding to understand the Local Authority’s intervention.

[102]Therefore, drawing that evidence together, if the father is able to meet the children’s needs, he will need to work with others to do so and that is a developing pattern that needs to be sustained and further developed in his working relationships.

The range of powers open to the Court

[103]When I look at the range of powers open to the Court, I am going to balance all realistic options. There is the option which the Local Authority seek of a care order now with a transition plan for the boys after the criminal trial when they will apply for a supervision order. The advantage of this, of course, is it is a final decision; it avoids delay; it brings these proceedings to an end for D and E; it gives the Local Authority parental responsibility and ensures they have oversight over the time the boys spend at home and can intervene if needs be; it ensures they can respond during this stressful proceedings of the criminal trial to whatever the outcome is; the work can be done with the family whilst the Local Authority have parental responsibility.

[104]Against this, I balance the inherent uncertainty of this care plan because the trial is outstanding. There would need to be another set of proceedings to discharge the care order or substitute a supervision order, and that leaves a high degree of uncertainty for the boys in the future. There cannot be real finality, even with a care order, in this case. C would be under a different order to his brothers, and the Local Authority would have parental responsibility for some but not all of the sibling group. It would mean that D and E no longer have a Guardian, and their views and reactions to spending time at home and the outcome of the criminal trial could not be captured independently although, of course, they could be recorded by the social worker.

[105]I look at making a supervision order for C now. The benefits of this are finality; there would be no change on the ground or C day to day; there could be a child in need plan to underpin it; it keeps Social Services’ oversight of the trial and the weekend sleepovers while his brothers are at home; it would reassure him that he will remain in his father’s care, which is everyone’s plan. Against this, he would not have a child’s Guardian, so his wishes and feelings around the outcome of the criminal trial and plan for his brothers would not be captured; he would lose, effectively, his voice in these proceedings and he, above all children, has come to see me twice and wants to know what is going on; he would be under a different order to his brothers and a new set of proceedings would need to be started urgently, should the father be convicted of and sentenced to prison because there is no-one in the UK ready to care for him. Therefore, although we all want finality for C, we do not have a crystal ball which can ensure it. He would have no independent reviewing officer and he would have a new social worker.

[106]The Guardian’s evidence is he would struggle with that change, and his particular needs means that he finds change harder to navigate than some children and harder to get to know new people. He would also have a different social worker from his brothers and this inevitably makes communication harder. The more professionals that are involved, the more interdisciplinary working that is involved, the greater risk there is of things falling through the gaps and lacks of consistency. I could make an interim supervision order for C, in essence continuing the one that exists now.

[107]Against that, of course, is the delay. C very much wants to know the end of the story and, of course, these long-running proceedings have been going on too long for him. However, in favour of this option, he would maintain his Guardian, his current social worker and independent reviewing officer; his voice would be heard and captured; nothing would change for him on the ground in any event; and although, of course, as lawyers we know the difference between an interim and a final order, C would discern very little difference on a day-to-day basis on the ground. In addition, it allows us to respond flexibly to whatever the outcome of the criminal proceedings are and however the staggered return home of his brothers works out. There is the option that the Guardian supports of an interim care order with foster care providing the majority of the care, but weekends at sleepover for D and E.

[108]Against this, of course, the social worker highlighted and accepted that it was possible that transferring to and from the foster care for the weekends might be distressing although that was not the experience of the last weekend, which I have heard about in evidence. Delay is of course inherent in this option, and a lack of permanency for the boys. It would mean long-running proceedings running even longer; the boys do not want to be in foster care and will feel that they have not been heard; they do not fully understand why they cannot be at home and will, no doubt, find this outcome hard to grasp emotionally and find it distressing. It means that D and E are separate from F; it means that the foster placement which is some while away from school involves a tiring journey to school and it has a social impact on their life outside school with friends. In addition, of course, I cannot rule out the possibility of delay in the criminal trial and the uncertainty of the timetable under an interim care order.

[109]In favour of this option, it means that the three younger boys would remain together with overnights for D and E with their father. They are settled in foster care and have a good relationship with the current carers. The boys responded well to the first sleepover and managed the transition to and from that care of their father without significant concern being raised. It allows a testing period of the boys returning to their father on an interim basis, and there could be an increase of their time with him if it goes well. Their inability to spend time with schoolfriends could be mitigated by a clear Working Together agreement about them being able to spend time with friends, playing football, in the local community near home, for example, if the father and social worker think this is helpful to them.

[110]D has spoken to his carer about reservations about returning home. The Local Authority would have parental responsibility for him and would be able to calibrate and monitor his reaction to overnights with his father, and allow his response to guide the increase of time at home and for its monitoring. The children would be able to share anything that is said to them about the criminal trial, and any stress that they are picking up from being at home they could unload with the foster carers and social worker, and process in the foster carer setting where they are settled. There could be a Working Together agreement that provides they could, as I have said, build up their schoolfriends’ time and ensure that they go to their therapeutic intervention. They would be able to keep their [ another language] going by talking in [ another language] at home with their mother without an interpreter, and they could speak to their family in [ a country in the Middle East] over the weekend.

[111]If there are arguments or a difficult family dynamic, then the Guardian and social worker offer time away from the home to report and reflect on it in their meetings with the boys. They would retain this Guardian and the independent reviewing officer, and the looked-after children meetings could provide formal oversight of how the increased time at home works. Of course the placement of parents’ regulations would require the Local Authority to consider, should they increase time, whether they need more resources in the family home and they could calibrate that time to the boys’ best welfare interests. The fallback of the foster carers would be there, but they could have maybe some more time with their father nearer school and could calibrate how they do with their time with their father, maybe to some overnights during the week. Therefore there is a structure around the boys living together again with this option, and the work recommended by the expert can be done to underpin their return and increase their time with him. The Families Together team could work on how that return progresses with the dynamic between the boys and how they all respond to it, and the father is given an opportunity to work with others to smooth the transition home and to strengthen further those working relationships. There could be the Care Act assessment of his health needs, and final care planning could take place after the trial with a transition plan that is bespoke in the light of whatever that brings.

[112]There would be no need for new proceedings if there was a need to respond to whatever the outcome of that trial was and the Guardian would remain in place with an ability to respond to changing circumstances quickly. The father’s wish is that, under any legal mechanism, the children should return home by half-term. This could be under an ICO, an interim supervision order, a care order or, indeed, a supervision order. There is much to be said in favour of this. It is consistent with the wishes and the feelings that have been expressed by E and D; it is a less interventionist involvement in the day-to-day life of the family, the more time they spend with their father; they would be nearer school, it would cut down the drive and enhance their social opportunities. It would be good for C; there could be an independent reviewing officer if a care order or interim care order was made, and the Guardian could continue if under an interim order; there could be a level of oversight with the looked-after children mechanisms, and it would be the same social worker if there is an interim supervision order, interim care order or care order for the boys. They would be able to speak freely to the family in [ a country in the Middle East]; able to do the work that the experts recommend whilst in the comfort of their own home; the father could be supported with his health needs and the Working Together agreement could underpin the boys in his care; it is what the father and C want; it avoids delay in unification; it minimises the risk of harm arising out of separation and foster care.

[113]Against this, of course, the interim care order would provide the highest level of oversight by the Local Authority but their position is they cannot accept this. It does not allow maybe the space to explore what D’s wishes and feelings are now they have become more nuanced, because he would be very quickly in the full-time of his father. There would remain, of course, uncertainty about the long-term plan.

[114]If the children moved back to the father over half-term, where the transition plan ends, their foster care place will more likely than not be offered to other children. Therefore, if there was a conviction in the criminal matter, or things did not go smoothly, they would need to be placed with another foster carer, no doubt separate from F, and that is another change of circumstance for them to get used to. They may not all be able to be placed together. F would be on his own in full-time foster care with his brothers all at home, which creates a very complex dynamic, and the social work and Guardian’s evidence was there is a risk he could be marginalised.

[115]We have not yet seen the completion of the Family Together work to address the dynamic between the boys, and the boys would be returned at a sensitive time, both within that work and in the criminal proceedings. There is a risk of the criminal proceedings being discussed with the boys, and they were drawn into conversation about the foster carer over the first weekend contact. There is less oversight by professionals of what conversations are taking place, and less opportunity for the boys to report back and calibrate their experiences with moving back in.

[116]In addition, there is still uncertainty around the father’s health and the extra support he might need, and it might take some time to get that in place. Of course, an interim supervision order could minimise the intrusiveness of the Local Authority’s involvement but, under that option, the Local Authority would not have parental responsibility. In my view, it has been necessary to hear the evidence that I have heard and to assess really whether now is the best time to make a final order for any of the boys.

[117]I am driven to the conclusion that it remains both necessary and proportionate to have an interim supervision order for C, and an interim care order for D and E. In my view, there probably needs to be a revised Working Together agreement to underpin the children’s return at the weekends, and maybe some ground rules for the boys themselves in plain language. For example, “You can tell people how things are going; it is not a good idea to fight with your brothers”, etc.

[118]Of course, there can be greater flexibility if their return to their father goes well, and the Working Together agreement could build in regular views. The start of it is there in the Local Authority’s final plan about weekend contact that they prepared on a contingency basis for the final hearing this week. I think it would also need to include the expectation that family therapy sessions are attended; not to discuss the criminal proceedings; to take advice from the Local Authority on family dynamics; and unannounced and announced visits; the foster carer check-in; and using the learning mentor are all things that could built into it.

[119]I think that a letter from the father’s GP would also be helpful and a referral to Adult Social Care for any more support that he needs physically.

[120]I accept that this is not what the family wanted, and I very much wanted to bring proceedings to a close, at least for some of the children. However, having calibrated all the evidence and balanced the advantages and disadvantages of each potential route before me, this is the conclusion which I conclude is in the boys’ best welfare interests. End of Judgment Transcript of a recording by Acolad UK Ltd 291-299 Borough High Street, London SE1 1JG Tel: 020 7269 0370 legal@ubiqus.com Acolad UK Ltd hereby certify that the above is an accurate and complete record of the proceedings or part thereof. This transcript has been approved by the judge.