Lily Crawford (A Child), Re [2025] EWFC 481 (B)

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 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.[2025] EWFC 481 (B)Case No WR25C50119
IN THE FAMILY COURT AT WORCESTER
Date Tuesday, 2 December 2025
The Shirehall Foregate Street Worcester WR1 1EQ
Before
RECORDER ADRIAN JACK
Between
WORCESTER COUNTY COUNCILApplicant
IN THE MATTER OF LILY CRAWFORD (A CHILD)
WORCESTER COUNTY COUNCILApplicant

Respondents

[1]RECORDER JACK: This matter concerns a five-month-old baby, Lily Crawford, who was born [in mid-2025]. The local authority seek a final care order and a placement order coupled with an order dispensing with the need for the parents' consent to adoption.[2]It is right at once to acknowledge that both the mother and the father deeply love their daughter, who is described in this way at page E32 (electronic bundle 529):
"Lily is a young female child of white UK origin. She is of good proportion for her height and weight. She has large, brown hazel eyes and light brown-blonde, short, fine hair. She is really coming on and is smiling and giggling now. She is always beautifully presented in lovely little baby clothes and sets which really complement her features… Lily is an amazing little girl. She loves kisses and cuddles and responds by smiling or babbling. She is thriving in foster care. She is a sociable little baby who loves to be around adults and will smile and giggle at them. She also responded beautifully to the toddler who was in the placement with her. She spends time with wider family and friends of the foster carer and soon warms to new people. She will offer smiles and giggles and really is beginning to take in her surroundings. She is especially responsive when it is people she knows. As she grows, she will be able to begin doing things such as baby groups and nursery, and this will further develop her social development."
[3]The key issue in this case is whether the mother, Mary Jameson, can currently or is likely within a reasonable period to be able to look after Lily in a manner such that Lily is not exposed to unacceptable risks. The local authority says she cannot and that nothing other than adoption will do. Lily's guardian supports the local authority's position. The mother and the father both oppose the making of an option order and urge that steps should be taken to promote in due course the return of Lily to the mother. Again, a key factual issue in this is whether the mother and the father have in fact ended their relationship or whether there is still a romantic link between the two. The background of this is an unhappy history of the mother entering abusive relationships with men who put her children at risk.[4]I turn to the parties. At electronic bundle 332 there is a report on the father from [his general practitioner]. This says:
"Bruce is a 26-year-old gentleman. He is diagnosed with mild learning disability, ADHD and autism. He also has asthma and migraine. His only current medication is a Salamol asthma inhaler... At his learning disability assessment, he has informed us that he is independent in feeding and dressing himself. His mum helps with cooking, although he can do some basic meals. He had a sick note from 13 March 2024 to 6 January 2025 for learning disability because he reports his struggles with social interactions. He was discharged from psychiatry when he turned 18. He is not under the care of any specialist at present."
[5]The Cafcass report at page 3 of that report says this:
"Both parents have a worrying relationship history characterised by domestic abuse. Mr Crawford is said to be the perpetrator of incidents of verbal, physical, emotional and alleged sexual abuse. Police and local authority records confirm a long-standing history of domestic abuse towards previous partners before his relationship with Ms Jameson which led to a disclosure being made to her under Clare's Law in 2021. Allegations recorded include assault, harassment, rape, revenge pornography and assault on police officers. 3. During their relationship Ms Jameson made allegations of physical and sexual assault perpetrated by Mr Crawford against her. Such has included Mr Crawford having filmed pornographic content of Ms Jameson and posting it on social media, which was observed by her then 13-year-old sister. During this period Ms Jameson describes living in a horse box situated on Mr Crawford's family property, sleeping on hay bales and toileting outside with limited access to washing facilities. She reported that she could only shower when visiting her father every couple of weeks. 4. Mr Crawford is said to have shown no concern for these conditions and according to Ms Jameson, laughed about the situation. This treatment demonstrates a complete lack of respect for Ms Jameson's dignity and well-being and reflects a worrying pattern of coercive and degrading behaviour within the relationship. This experience, combined with other reports of controlling and abusive behaviour, clearly evidences the emotional harmful and unsafe nature of the parents' relationship. It also highlights Ms Jameson's vulnerability to coercion and her previous inability to recognise and act upon risk, factors that continue to require close consideration when assessing her capacity to protect Lily in the future. 5. Despite support and encouragement from the local authority in accessing refuge accommodation, Ms Jameson had for whatever reason been either unable or unwilling to separate from Mr Crawford. 6. It must also be highlighted that prior to her relationship with Mr Crawford, Ms Jameson's previous partner and father to her son [Jerome Carr] was said to have been abusive and controlling of her. The social work chronology from the 2018 proceedings in respect of Jerome highlights incidents of verbal and physical abuse perpetrated by Bill Carr against her during their five-year relationship. 7. This demonstrates that Ms Jameson has experienced repeated patterns of abuse and coercive control in successive relationships. These experiences have understandably affected her confidence and ability to recognise risk or establish safe boundaries. While she has engaged positively with domestic abuse services since these proceedings began, her understanding and capacity to apply learning remains untested outside a supported environment. 8. Mr Crawford was referred to the Men & Masculinities Programme as part of the local authority's plan to address concerns regarding his use of aggression, control and coercion in relationships. However, he attended only two or three sessions before disengaging completely, describing the programme as a waste of time. He was unable to demonstrate any insight into what he had learnt or how his behaviour had affected others. 9. Of note, Mr Crawford does appear to accept that his behaviours have at time been harmful towards Ms Jameson. He told me that he accepts that he has been physically abusive to her once or twice, and I note that during his assessment he has accepted having controlled or blackmailed Ms Jameson and that he could be horrible to her. 10. Whilst Ms Jameson and Mr Crawford both report separation and commitment to prioritising Lily, I am concerned that even if physical separation has occurred, emotionally this is not the case. I say this because I note Mr Crawford had in his updated assessment reported having separated only due to the local authority involvement. Ms Jameson had within her assessment shared the same view. 11. In addition, during the interview I found Ms Jameson somewhat defensive and to some degree protective of Mr Crawford, referring to him as "a good dad who helped me a lot with Emanuel and who never hurt my son or wouldn't hurt a child"
. She struggled to accept that his actions had been harmful towards Jerome and denied that in utero Lily was exposed to his behaviours. 12. In addition, when late to register Lily's birth in August 2025, Ms Jameson's response was to seek Mr Crawford for support, resulting in him collecting her and taking her with him. Rather than seeking assistance from her support network such as her father, mother or professionals, Ms Jameson reached out to Mr Crawford, which in my view demonstrates some dependency upon him. 13. Overall the evidence demonstrates that the relationship between Ms Jameson and Mr Crawford remains characterised by unhealthy dependency, poor boundaries and a lack of emotional separation. Despite the significant support offered, neither parent has demonstrated sufficient capacity for insight or sustained change. In my view these factors create a continuing risk that Lily would be exposed to emotional harm through instability, coercion and conflict if returned to Ms Jameson's or indeed Mr Crawford's care. 14. Offending history. Further compounding the risk posed by Mr Crawford is his significant criminal history. Records indicate a pattern of offending behaviour including assault, harassment, criminal damage and assault on police officers. Mr Crawford has also been investigated in relation to revenge pornography and sexual offences, which, although not all resulted in convictions, his offending history demonstrates a concerning pattern of hostility, poor impulse control and disregard for boundaries and authority. 15. Though Mr Crawford's last known conviction was 2022, his offending behaviour presents an ongoing risk given his continued aggression and hostility towards professionals during these proceedings. His lack of sustained engagement with services aimed at addressing his behaviour, coupled with his limited insight into the impact of his actions on others, heightens concerns about his capacity to provide safe care to Lily should she be placed in his care. 16. The pattern of offending, particularly involving violence and disregard for authority, raises serious doubts about Mr Crawford's emotional regulation and ability to manage conflict appropriately. In my view this significantly undermines his ability to prioritise Lily's needs above his own and to provide a calm, stable and protective environment."[6]It can be seen that as a result of the Clare's Law disclosures, the mother knew about the father's history.[7]Ms Howells was cross-examined. She is the social worker in this case, and what she said was this. She accepted in cross-examination from Ms Slater for the father that the father has shown commitment, that father is gentle and devoted to Lily. The father and the child enjoy contact. He achieved 98 per cent on parenting tests. The father accepted that there was abuse and that he had been unkind to the mother. The father accepted the threshold put forward by the local authority for founding a care order, and once the mother was pregnant then there was no more physical abuse. She was taken to page 485 of the electronic bundle, where it recited a call to the police on 8 May 2025 where there was a complaint of controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate relationship with Ms Jameson at Kidderminster and said at the time and date:
"The partner of the victim has called officers to let us know that his partner has gone missing. When call takers have got in touch with the victim, the victim has stated that she turned her telephone off as she did not want to hear from her partner. She also mentioned that her partner has to be in 24-hour/7 contact with her."
[8]That was, Ms Howells said, an example of coercive control. She accepted the midwife had raised no concerns about the father. As regards the Men & Masculinities course, she accepted that the father was autistic but she said, "I did not think the group setting would be a problem". As to the parental assessment, that was given by Kim Taylor, and that recited that the father thought the course was a waste of time. She accepted that one-to-one advice on domestic violence would be a possibility. She was taken to his previous convictions, which comprise an assault on 13 April 2021 and a driving matter on 2 August 2022, but said that that did not reflect the full background, and she accepted that the father had acted appropriately in contact and said that she was happy to work with the father on a professional basis.[9]The mother was born [in 1999]. She was in a relationship with Bill Carr from about 2019 or slightly earlier until 2021. There was one child of that relationship, Jerome, born [in 2020]. Mr Carr was abusive of the mother and that resulted in no fewer than three sets of care proceedings being begun, one in Shropshire the other two in Worcestershire. Initially Jerome was placed with his father and his new partner, but the placement broke down as a result of Mr Carr's violence. One of the local authority concerns is that the mother and Mr Carr were and are still in contact. Ms Howells, who gave evidence about this, said that the mother claimed to have blocked Mr Carr's number but that this was another example of her lying to the local authority.[10]The last set of care proceedings concerning Jerome finished in January this year with a final care order being made. Jerome was placed with the mother's father, John Jameson. The placement is going well but unfortunately it means that Mr Jameson is unable to provide a home for Lily. There are no other relatives able to look after Lily. Of significance in Jerome's care proceedings is that in the course of the care proceedings there was a safety plan which provided that Mr Crawford should have no contact with Jerome. Mr Crawford broke that requirement on at least one occasion, when he escaped over a fence when social workers attended a contact meeting between Jerome and the mother. The local authority rely on this to show that the father cannot be relied upon to observe exclusion zones and that the mother cannot be relied on to ensure that the father observes any restrictions which are placed on him.[11]Up until shortly before Lily's birth, the mother and the father lived together at the father's mother's property. The father’s mother has mental health difficulties and would not allow the mother to enter the house. As a result the mother and the father lived in a horse box on the grounds of the house. The horse box lacked toilets and washing facilities, and the mother went to her father's house every couple of weeks to shower. The horse box was obviously grossly unsuited for housing a young baby, and once the local authority knew that the mother was pregnant, they took steps so as to be able to start care proceedings as soon as Lily was born. On the May bank holiday of this year the local authority, knowing of the mother's advanced pregnancy, devised a plan for the mother to go into a refuge. The mother ostensibly agreed that she had to end her relationship with the father if she was going to retain Lily, and going to a refuge would allow her to separate from him safely. Despite her ostensible willingness to accept this plan, in fact she continued to live with the father right up to Lily's birth. The local authority rely on this as an example of how they are unable to trust what the mother says and what she promises to do. On 2 July 2025 an interim care order was made. Since then Lily has lived with foster carers. As the passage I read at the start of my judgment showed, she is thriving.[12]On 8 July 2025 the mother moved into a new property. She and the father, ostensibly at any rate, ended their relationship at this point. The new property is an upstairs two-bedroom flat. The mother keeps it in a good condition. The rent is paid for by housing benefit and there are no arrears. It would be a suitable place to bring up Lily. Two matters of concern arise, however. First, it is only about 15 minutes' walk from the father's mother's house, where the father still lives. Secondly, the father helped the mother move into her new property. This meant of course that, against the local authority's advice, the father knows where the mother lives. It is also a matter relied on by the local authority to show that the mother still relies on the father even if they are not physically living together. This was followed by an incident on 11 August 2025 when the father drove the mother to the registry office so that they could register the birth of Lily. Again, the local authority say this shows reliance by the mother on the father. The guardian also relies on this as an example of, as she put it in her examination in chief, the mother struggling to avoid going back to her abuser.[13]After this time the mother's grandmother's health unfortunately went into decline. She was admitted to hospital, which resulted in the mother understandably missing a development class for the Freedom Programme, and sadly her grandmother died. John Jameson, her son, organised the distribution of her estate. He and the mother agreed that she should have some of her grandmother's furniture for her new flat. Someone called Jason, a friend of both the mother and Mr Crawford, agreed to collect and deliver the furniture on 2 November 2025. At one point Jason proposed to John Jameson that the father should come to help him, but John Jameson flatly refused to allow that, even if the father stayed in Jason's car. This again is relied on by the local authority to show an ongoing dependent relationship between the mother and the father. The mother's case is at page 286 of the electronic bundle, and she said:
"I required assistance with help moving furniture from my grandmother's house after her passing. I asked my father for help. However, he did not have a van to assist. I knew that Bruce's friend Jason had a van, so I asked him via Snapchat whether he could assist. I do not have Jason's phone number, therefore only communicated with him via social media such as Snapchat. I also have Jason on Facebook. Jason informed that he would assist but he wanted to bring Bruce along for assistance. I asserted that Bruce could not be in attendance because we were unable to be around each other. I strongly informed Jason that I did not wish for Bruce to be in attendance to either property. Jason persisted for Bruce's attendance, informing that he would be unable to assist unless Bruce was in attendance. I then informed my father of Jason's position via message. I was not suggesting that Bruce was going to attend but stating Jason's position. I provided my father's number to Jason so they could communicate between themselves in relation to the date, times and Bruce's attendance. I did not consent to Bruce attending either property, nor would I allow this to happen. Jason and I retrieved the furniture. Bruce did not attend. My father carried the furniture out of my grandmother's. This was due to the furniture needing to be carried down two sets of stairs. Jason transported the furniture to my address and assisted in taking them out of the van. I then brought each individual item into my flat. The furniture was lightweight and did not require two people to carry them up. The furniture included a chest of drawers, a dressing table, a deconstructed metal bed frame, a small rug and a bag of clothes. I have had no communication with Bruce since registering Lily's birth. I have been open and honest with professionals throughout and provided my phone when asked. The professionals have failed to provide proof that I have been in communication with Bruce. The hypotheses are based on coincidence."
[14]I turn to the law and acknowledge that some of this is taken from a judgment of HHJ Vincent. Care proceedings involve two basic questions. First, are the threshold criteria for making a care or supervision order under section 31 of the Children Act 1989 satisfied? Secondly, if so, what order should the court make? Section 31 provides that the court may only make a care order or supervision order if it is satisfied that the child concerned is suffering or is likely to suffer significant harm and that the harm is attributable to the care which the child has received or would receive. In the threshold, the risks are accepted here. The next question is: what order should I make? That involves well-established legal principles, the rights of parents and children under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights to respect for family and private life are engaged here. Section 1(1) of the Children Act 1989 says that the child's welfare must be my paramount consideration. Section 1(2) tells me not to delay the proceedings because delay is likely to affect the child's welfare. Section 1(3) contains the well-known welfare checklist. I have regard to the entirety of the checklist, but it seems to me the important element within it is the risk facing the child if she returns to parental care and the capability of the mother for meeting her care needs, which in turn involve assessing that risk.[15]On the application for a placement order, the court applies section 1 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002. On such an application, my paramount consideration is the child's welfare throughout her life. Again, the section enjoins me to take into account the fact that delay in coming to a decision is likely to prejudice her welfare. Once again, there is a checklist of factors to take into account. In this case, it is in section 1(4) of the 2002 Act. The differences between that and the checklist under the Children Act 1989 are largely concerned with taking a lifelong view in respect of the child and also keeping a close eye on the importance to her of the relationships that will be lost through adoption. Beyond that, by both section 1(3)(g) of the 1989 Act and 1(6) of the 2002 Act, the court is required to have regard to the range of orders available. Under section 21(3) of the 2002 Act, the court may not make a placement order unless satisfied either that the parents have consented or that their consent has been dispensed with. In this case, neither parent gives active consent to the making of placement order and under section 52(1)(b) the court may dispense with the parents' consent only if the welfare of the child concerned requires the consent to be dispensed with.[16]The Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court have interpreted for lower courts all of this material and, in essence, there is now a fairly straightforward level of guidance provided for the courts. A signal point of it is that there is a level of obligation on the local authority bringing the proceedings to present the court with a Re B-S analysis relating to the pros and cons of each realistic option for the care of the child and the evidence base underlining it. That has been done here. The guardian has a similar task on her hands. I have to do the same thing. I have to identify the realistic options, summarise the pros and cons and then reach a welfare conclusion. I have to do that in a holistic way rather than a linear fashion. I am not able to find one particular option wanting as a result of its disadvantages and automatically assume that any remaining option is the correct one. I have to stand back and look at all the options in the round.[17]There are one or two other things to say. That is that a placement for adoption cannot be approved by the court unless literally nothing else will do. That is a serious and very high test. Secondly, that in looking at parental care the court is not looking for perfection. It is looking for a level of care that is good enough to meet the needs of the child concerned. As a society we have to countenance care that is sometimes below par and sometimes causes the child some measure of harm, perhaps may be inconsistent and perhaps also described as barely adequate. That is a level of parenting that the state is not entitled to interfere with. It is the level of care and the impact on the child that incites significant harm that would be caused that the state and indeed the family justice system has not only the right but the obligation to intervene.[18]I turn then to the parties' cases. The guardian says this at paragraph 34 of her statement:
"Ms Jameson is opposed to the local authority's recommendation for a plan of adoption in respect of Lily. She seeks her immediate return to her care and that she would be willing for a care order to enable this to happen. If Lily were to return to her care, she indicates that she would be willing to accept and engage with a package of support and follow safety planning.35. The local authority has completed an updated parenting assessment of Ms Jameson during these proceedings, which I find fair and balanced despite its negative conclusion. The assessment highlights that Ms Jameson presents with some positive attributes, including a developing awareness of domestic abuse, her undeniable love for Lily, her good-quality family time sessions, her secure housing situation and her awareness of the changing needs of babies and children. Together these positives mean that had there been no issue of risk and concern, reunification would have been a real possibility for Lily into her mother's care. It would have meant that Ms Jameson would likely have been able to provide Lily with a stable home environment within which she would have the capacity to meet her day-to-day emotional and physical needs. 37. Unfortunately, however, the assessment highlights that notwithstanding the positive attributes, there are significant ongoing and serious risks associated with Ms Jameson and her parenting capacity. Such primarily relates to her deeply concerning relationship history, which, as previously highlighted, is characterised by domestic abuse, conflict and controlling and coercive behaviour. 38. The assessment notes that whilst Ms Jameson is engaging with services to increase her awareness and improve her capacity to keep herself and Lily safe, such efforts have had little impact to date. It highlights that despite her developing insight surrounding domestic abuse, Ms Jameson has been unable to apply this to her own circumstances. Overall, despite repeated and long-term professional involvement spanning over the last five years, Ms Jameson's knowledge of domestic abuse and capacity to keep herself and therefore Lily safe are limited. 39. I have had the opportunity to meet with Ms Jameson on 30 October 2025, having first attended family time with Lily and then completing an interview at her home address afterwards. I found Ms Jameson a polite, friendly and likable individual who was easy to build a rapport with. She engaged well, having answered all questions asked of her, and despite some very direct and frank discussions, she never once refused to cooperate. [Pausing there, that was the same impression I got from seeing Ms Jameson in the witness box]. 40. I made some positive observations of Ms Jameson's and Lily's interactions. I found her to be warm, loving and attentive to Lily, remaining calm when Lily was unsettled and upset. She was easily comforted by her mother and clearly content in her presence. It is this love along with Ms Jameson's endearing personality and likability that makes this an incredibly sad situation and recommendation to make about Lily's future. Unfortunately, however, the risks in this matter are such that I am unable to support Ms Jameson in her aspiration to provide full-time care to Lily. 41. I say this because in the interview I found her present with a worrying combination of limited insight, poor self-esteem and confidence, lack of awareness of the root cause of her relationship problems and, crucially, a lack of natural protective instinct. Though she can articulate some aspects of domestic abuse, I am concerned she struggles to apply this to her own situation and relationships. She struggles to think proactively and take proactive steps to ensure her own safety. For instance, she told me that if Lily were to return to her care, she would change her phone number, install video cameras in her home and seek a non-molestation order to prevent Mr Crawford from having contact with her and evidence that she can keep herself and Lily safe. 42. What concerns me however is that this is a reactive rather than a proactive approach, indicating that Ms Jameson continues to underestimate the complexity of managing risk in practice. Her plan relies heavily on local authority or legal measures rather than demonstrating internalised protective instincts or insight into how patterns of coercion or dependency can re-emerge. 43. It is also of concern that Ms Jameson continues to demonstrate emotional reliance on Mr Crawford despite reporting separation. Throughout these proceedings she has continued to seek him out for support at times of stress, most recently when registering Lily's birth. This reinforces the assessment findings that she has not yet achieved emotional separation and remains vulnerable to influence, which would compromise her ability to protect Lily in the community. 44. I found her justifying her actions, telling me that she had no other option but to contact Mr Crawford for support in registering the birth. Rather than thinking about other options, including seeking support from her support networks or professionals or rescheduling the appointment, her response was to revert to past patterns of behaviour, relying upon the one person she should be avoiding. Even when this was highlighted as a concern and evidence of poor coping skills, Ms Jameson continued to justify her decision-making. 45. At the time of the interview Ms Jameson stated that she had not been able to reach out and seek support from her father, telling me that he was collecting Jerome from school, despite it being the school holidays. However, when I had spoken to Mr Crawford, he told me that Ms Jameson had informed him that she had done so. He stated that he had seen a text message asking her father for assistance in getting the registrar. Of note, I later spoke to Ms Jameson, who, unprompted, provided the same almost word-for-word account. When challenged about this coincidence, Ms Jameson denied any contact with Mr Crawford, but sadly I cannot help but be sceptical about this denial. 46. I also remain concerned about Ms Jameson's capacity to manage stress or emotional pressure independently. While she presents as calm and capable in structured, supervised settings, her history indicates that in times of difficulty she becomes overwhelmed and reverts to maladaptive coping mechanisms. These include seeking comfort from unsafe individuals, avoiding professional involvement or attempting to conceal information."
[19]The guardian then deals with the father but says that she had not been able to interview him.[20]Ms Howells gave evidence for the local authority. She was an obvious witness of truth, and indeed it was the inferences from her evidence which were challenged in cross-examination rather than any primary facts. The majority of the facts I have set out above.[21]The father gave a witness statement at page 265 of the bundle, electronic bundle C136. In it he says that he filed a position statement for the hearing and points out that there are no negative comments about him from the hospital:
"But there are no positive comments either, when I feel I did really well at the hospital. I also confirm that we separated on 8 July, but I have helped Mary to get to and from contact up until 11 July. She had a difficult birth and was struggling to walk. 3. On 12 August I told my solicitor and my solicitor told all parties that I had taken Mary to register Lily's birth the previous day. The place to register births is halfway between Kidderminster and Stourport-on-Severn. It would be a long way for Mary to walk, and I agreed to take her to register the birth as she would have been criticised for not registering the birth. I am not sure who else would have taken her to register the birth, and when we arrived there, Mary said that my name could go on the birth certificate, and so it did. Since that time Mary and I have stayed separated. We have had separate contact. I note that the social worker repeatedly says that my home is not suitable for a baby. I accepted that and I know that. I know that I am not in position to provide full-time care for Lily. What I want to happen is for Mary to be given the opportunity to care for Lily herself."
[22]Then he deals with something for which he is not now criticised and continues:
"6. I have attended all but three of my contact. I always call early if I am unable to make it. My contact was suspended for a week. The reason was that because I sent some threatening texts to the social worker and the team manager. I realised that was a stupid and nasty thing to do and that they would have felt threatened. The problem is I was repeatedly receiving telephone calls from social workers who were telling me our plan is adoption, and they did not just say it once, they kept messaging me about it. It is very upsetting to think that the plan is for Lily to be adopted. I was saying Mary should be given the chance to care and they kept saying it is because of her past relationship. 7. [He dealt with the Men & Masculinities course and said that when he attends contact] there are reports that I am polite and cooperative during contact, that I care for Lily properly during contact. I sing to her, I change her nappy, I feed her, I provide toys for her and do all the things that you should do with a baby. I would like to be able to carry on doing that for Lily as she grows up.9. The social workers have told me that Mary is not able to care for Lily because of her past relationships and past risks. I think Mary last had Jerome in her care in June 2021. As soon as she and I started seeing each other, they said she had to go to a mother and baby placement, which she did. The only reason I knew where it was was because Mary had left behind her Find My Location on her phone. I never went there as I wasn't driving at the time. Mary is in a different place now. She has got her own place. I understand she is doing lots of courses and engaging with professionals. I fully support Mary in supported care for Lily. I think she should be given more time to show that she can care. 10. Everyone says we have only separated because we have been told to. I realise that Mary and I can't be together and that in order for her to have Lily, that she and I must not be together. I would not do anything to risk Lily not being in Mary's care. 11. I support Mary fully in seeking to have Lily in her care. I would suggest that there should be more time allowed for Mary to show the changes she has made. I know there have been some things said about Bill. I received a call on my phone from a no-caller ID. As soon as I answered, I realised it was Bill Carr saying something about calling the police on Mary's dad, and I hung up the phone and blocked the no-caller IDs now. 12. I know that the local authority is saying that Mary and I have been in touch. I really don't know where that information has come from. It is not true. I am quite happy for my phone to be handed over to check. 13. I have recently seen my son, and I am trying to arrange to see him regularly. 14. I still live at my mother's property. I know full well that it is not a place for a baby to be brought up. I have admitted that from the very beginning of these proceedings."
[23]Mr Crawford did not give evidence before me, but the local authority indicated that it did not want to cross-examine him. There is a second witness statement in which he denied all knowledge of any arrangements for furniture to be brought from the grandmothers.[24]The mother's case is set out in her first witness statement at C91 (electronic bundle 200). There she says:
"5. Domestic violenceI accept that domestic violence has been present within the relationships I have had but I do not accept that Lily was exposed to this during utero. There has not been any physical altercation since 2022 between Bruce and I. There has not been any arguments since 2023. Since becoming aware of the pregnancy with Lily, Bruce's behaviour has changed for the better. 6. I do accept that Bruce would continue to make comments that would emotionally harm me, which included that I am a bad mother and Jerome is better off without me. This would make me feel upset and down. I accept that this would have had an impact on Lily whilst in utero. 7. In the past I have not engaged fully in the support provided and I am unable to provide an explanation for this. I would have conversations with people about the domestic violence incidents, but I wanted to make decisions for myself. 8. In relation to refusing a refuge, I did want to go to the refuge to safeguard myself but I was worried that I would not be able to get my own place if I was to go. In addition, I was concerned that I would not be able to see Jerome. I decided it would be better if I continued looking for my own place and move in there once I had received this rather than going to a refuge away from Jerome. I did express this to the social worker. However, I cannot remember what was said at the time. 9. I have seen the errors of my past actions and would like to engage with the support going forward. I have self-referred to Women's Aid in order to obtain the relevant information required. I am determined to do better for Lily. Relationship with Bruce10. When the relationship with Bruce began, things were really good. I would describe the relationship as lovey-dovey. However, things went bad when Jerome was taken off me. This is when Bruce started cheating on me. Bruce informed that it was because he did not feel the same with Jerome gone. Despite this, the relationship continued and so did Bruce's behaviour. This led to Bruce recording me in my sleep and more. 11. Bruce eventually broke up with me through his sister's friend. I was heartbroken at the time and wondered why this was happening to me. I went to Bridgnorth as I had no reason to stay in Kidderminster. Bruce would continue to message me, informing me that he loved me, but entered into a relationship with another girl. 12. Not long after, I arranged with Bruce to meet to collect my belongings that I had left in his property. Bruce's current girlfriend attended the meeting and assaulted me. I reported this incident to the police. Bruce did nothing to stop the attack. 13. After the attack, Bruce and I continued talking here and there until we started our relationship again. This was at that time that I had to sleep in the horsebox, as his mother would not let me back into the house. Even though I had done nothing wrong, she sided with Bruce. Whilst I was staying in the horsebox, Bruce continued to speak to other girls. I was made aware as girls would message me telling me the things they were doing with Bruce. I wanted to go back to Bridgnorth but Bruce did not want me to go and assaulted me to prevent this. 14. I stayed in the horsebox as I had nowhere to go. I was unable to stay with my dad as he had Jerome in his care, and I am only allowed supervised contact with Jerome. I was unable to stay with my mother as all the rooms were occupied as by my brother and sister lived there. At the time I was unable to live with my grandmother as my other sister's children were there, so there was no space for me. 15. I have not disclosed all of Bruce's cruel behaviours due to being embarrassed. The things that have happened to me are really embarrassing and I felt ashamed. This made it difficult for me to have that conversation. However, I would be able to inform professionals if anything was to happen to Lily, as I want to keep her safe and would not want her in harm's way. I would be able to put Lily's needs first. [Then she deals with the home conditions, which everybody accepts are now satisfactory, and goes on.]Support system18. I have support from my family, who I speak to regularly. This includes my dad, mum, two sisters and my nan [she obviously has now sadly passed]. I am able to get advice over the phone whenever I need this, and I am sure this will continue if Lily is placed in my care. My mum and nan are also able to help me if I ever needed it. Changes made19. The reason why I was not able to care for Jerome during his proceedings was due to not being in my own property and being in a relationship with Bruce, as Bruce was not allowed around Jerome. I therefore knew I would not be able to have Jerome unless there was a change in these circumstances. 20. I have now ended the relationship with Bruce on 8 July 2025. We both agreed that it would be better for Lily if we were no longer in a relationship. We have not been in communication since then, save for when attending joint contact with Lily. The contact sessions have now been separated, and therefore I have no reason to speak to Bruce now. 21. The reason it took me so long to have the conversation with Bruce about ending our relationship was because I did not want to speak to anyone following Lily being removed from my care. I was not in the best position to talk with Bruce after this. I wanted to deal with my emotions, as I had just given birth and had Lily removed soon after. I know I should have ended the relationship sooner but I have done so now. I do not have any intention of getting back with Bruce or into a new relationship. 22. I have completed parenting courses with a Solihull Approach, including "
Understanding your preterm or sick baby now you're home", "Understanding your preterm or sick baby in hospital", "Understanding pregnancy, labour, birth and your baby" [and she puts that as an exhibit]. I am in the process of completing more courses and am willing to engage with any professionals necessary. 23. I have referred to Women's Aid, therefore I am waiting for the new course to begin. The course is set to begin on 23 September 2025. This will last for around eight sessions. Women's Aid has provided me with a link for the Freedom Programme that I can complete as well. 24. I am also in the process of completing online domestic violence courses with alison.com. I first looked into this on 7 July 2025. 25. I have also bought all things that Lily need for her return such as a cot, cot sheets, clothes etcetera. [She then deals with one matter before going on to the long-term position.]29. I wish to be assessed to care for Lily as I am able to provide her with the love and care that she needs. I am able to keep Lily safe and provide her with the stability throughout her childhood. I am keen to be assessed on my own as I do not believe that the parenting assessment completed within the PLO process had been completed in a neutral environment for me, and I do not believe that all aspects of the assessment has been completed fully. I wish to fully engage within any further assessment, and I am in a position to do so now as I have my own property and will not be influenced by others. 30. I do not have any alternative carers to put forward during these proceedings, as the only person I would put forward, my father, has my other child. My father has informed me that he would be unable to care for both my children. 31. I therefore seek the return of Lily to my care at the end of proceedings. I love Lily and Jerome deeply. However, I know that Jerome is well cared for and in a routine. I would want both my children in my care but I do not wish to disrupt Jerome at this stage. I seek Lily to be returned to my care first."[25]There are two other statements at page 272 (electric) and 285 (electric) but I do not need to read those. She gave evidence and was cross-examined on it. In the course of the cross-examination by Ms Porteous for the local authority, she accepted that Mr Carr was physically abusive to her and emotionally coercive. She said, "I experienced that with the father, and I was living in a horse box, and the social workers helped me to move out". She said she knew that where she was living in the horse box was not an appropriate place to rear a child and that she was in an unhealthy relationship. She accepted that the local authority had a plan to move her to a safer place in a refuge, and she was reassured that Jerome's contact with her would be able to continue if she was in a refuge, but she said she remained in a relationship with the father and she knew that the local authority were concerned about the risks from Mr Carr and the father. She accepted that the father had jumped over a fence when social workers attended but she denied that a similar incident happened where he was in a loft. She said he was not in a loft, but she accepted that it was contrary to the safety plan for the father to be there with Jerome.[26]She said that she separated from the father after Lily's birth and that she separated because of the relationship but said it is not just because Lily was born. As to the messages from Mr Carr, she said that she regretted those and regretted having replied and said, "He got me to answer". She accepted that she should not have. She said Mr Carr knew how to get a reaction out of her and said, "It raised a risk because I was vulnerable to Mr Carr". She denied that she did not tell the social workers about messages and she did not intend to deceive anybody and said, "Nadia [Ms Howells] had asked me about messages in order to get an answer from me and I said I should have brought it to her attention immediately. I made a conscious decision not to pass the information on". She accepted it was deceptive and she accepted she did not tell Women's Aid either about that. On 11 October 2025 she said she did not go to register Lily's birth. She said, "I spoke to social workers afterwards. Jerome was on school holidays so dad couldn't help. I did not tell anybody about the arrangements with Mr Crawford. I was placing myself at risk. The local authority would have been able to assist me with a lift", she accepted. She denied having any messages with Joy Lynn about the furniture.[27]When giving evidence, the mother was clearly a vulnerable woman. However, in my judgment this supports the local authority's case that she is at risk of coercive men such as Mr Carr and Mr Crawford. I bear out what the guardian says at the conclusion of her report in paragraph 41, where she refers to the worrying combination of the mother's limited insight, poor self-esteem and confidence, lack of awareness of the root cause of her relationship patterns and, crucially, a lack of natural protective instinct. On the balance of probabilities I accept the local authority's case that Ms Jameson is still in contact with Mr Crawford and still has an emotional dependency upon him. The repeated incidents after their relationship ostensibly ended on 8 July 2025 bear out the conclusions of the guardian and of Ms Howells.[28]The local authority's analysis is at page 255 of the bundle. They deal first of all with the rehabilitation of Lily to the parents' care and say:
"(a) The advantages to LilyThis would allow Lily to be raised by her birth mother or father and protect her rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which refers to the right for children and their families to have their private lives respected. Where possible, the local authority aims to keep children within their birth family. It would allow Lily to maintain her attachment to her parents and continue her relationship with the extended family, such as her maternal grandparents and maternal aunts as well as her half-brother. Lily would remain within her birth family and her identity needs would be met as a result of being part of that family. (b) Disadvantages to LilyIf Lily were to return to Ms Jameson or Mr Crawford, it is assessed that she would continue to suffer significant harm due to the concerns expressed within the parenting assessment. The prebirth parenting assessment and the parenting assessment in respect of Mr Crawford and Ms Jameson has concluded that Lily's needs would not be met currently. Lily is vulnerable by virtue of her age and would not be able to express her wishes and feelings, nor would she be able be able to report any concerns from her daily lived experiences within the family home. (c) Range of assistance and support that could be made available by the local authority and/or othersThere would be social work visits signposting to additional support services where necessary. Mr Crawford and Ms Jameson would be encouraged to engage in further parenting support work and would be able to have access to a family support worker for a limited time. (d) The range of powers available to the court in this scenario[They identify supervision orders, no order, a care order, a child arrangement order.](e) Whether in the light of the above analysis the option is assessed as realistic or not This option is not assessed as being realistic given the concerns the local authority have regarding Mr Crawford and Ms Jameson's ability to keep Lily safe. This option would put Lily at increased risk of significant harm. Mr Crawford has not engaged with any of the work recommended to him, and the parenting assessment of Mr Crawford and Ms Jameson has identified a number of risks that would be linked to Lily being placed in Mr Crawford and Ms Jameson's care, and those risks are not manageable. It is not considered in Lily's best interest to return to the care of Mr Crawford and Ms Jameson, for the changes that are required have not been made to consider it safe to do so. Second option: Lily to remain in foster placement under a care order(a) Advantages to LilyLily is currently placed with foster carers. Lily would be safeguarded from any harm if she were to remain as a looked-after child in a long-term fostering arrangement. This would provide her with better than good enough care. She would have her needs met and prioritised. Lily would be provided with a home environment which was ideally stable, loving, nurturing, as well as enabling her to reach her full potential alongside the support that can be offered to looked-after children because of her care status. In addition, a foster care home would ensure that any health needs were supported, including attendance at regular medical appointments. The foster carers would be provided with ongoing support to ensure that Lily's needs were being met on an emotional, social, educational or developmental basis. She would receive a high level of monitoring and support from children's services and other agencies to ensure the coordination of appropriate support services around them and their carers. It is likely that Lily would also maintain a level of direct contact with her birth parents and extended family members. This would promote their family relationships and sense of identity. This care plan would also keep alive the possibility of a return to her mother's care in the future, as the local authority would reassess any changes made by the birth mother. Lily would be able to receive local authority support as a looked-after child when necessary, and then she would benefit from the leaving care services when they reach eligibility. (b) Disadvantages to LilyLily is very young, and this care plan would mean that she would be a looked-after child with a high level of ongoing social worker involvement for the next 17 years respectively. This is not consistent with her right to a private and family life, and there is a risk that she will feel stigma due to her status as a looked-after child. There is little guarantee that any identified foster carers would be able to provide her with a placement for the entirety of her remaining childhood, and there is a risk of repeated placement breakdowns and moves, which would undermine her emotional well-being. If placed in long-term foster care, Lily would not be residing with her birth family. The level of involvement from children's services would remain high, and she would be subject to LAC reviews, visits, health assessments, PEPs whilst in foster care. As a looked-after child, the local authority of the corporate parents would need to give permission to enable the [child] to participate in events such as school trips and holidays abroad. This ongoing involvement from local authority throughout her childhood would potentially have a destabilising and negative effect on her self-esteem, confidence, identity and ability to have secure and stable relationships. This does not offer Lily permanence or the right to a normal private family life. (c) Range of assistance, support that could be made available by the local authority or othersThe local authority would support and facilitate alongside carers Lily's contact with Ms Jameson and Mr Crawford to ensure this is safe and managed. Lily would receive ongoing life story work to support her in making sense of her journey and why certain decisions have been made regarding who can or cannot care for her. Lily would have regular health assessments and LAC reviews and PEP to monitor her progress. (d) Range of powers available to the court in this scenario, primarily a care order and whether in the light of the above analysis this option is assessed as realistic or notThis option is not assessed as being realistic given Lily's age. Lily needs a secure, safe, predictable family home life with parents who can importantly offer her permanency lifelong as well as the emotional, practical and legal permanency. Lily is a young child who is reliant on her main caregivers and as such requires routine, nurture and consistency with adults who will be able to prioritise her needs and ensure that she is safe. Lily needs to grow up in an environment where she is happy so she can grow up trusting the adults in her lives so that she can develop healthy and connected meaningful relationships in every aspect of her life. Third option: adoption(a) Advantages to LilyAdoption would give Lily a permanent opportunity to be raised as part of a permanent family without the need for agency or local authority involvement throughout her childhood. She would no longer be a child in care. As such, she would no longer have the intrusion of children's services in every aspect of her life. It would allow her to form and build long-term attachments to a permanent new family, and there would be a reduced risk of placement breakdown compared to long-term foster care. Lily would have an opportunity to experience stability and security and to be brought up in a safe environment with consistent and reliable adoptive parents. She would have a secure legal status throughout her whole childhood. There is less risk of placement disruption or breakdown in comparison to long-term fostering. It is envisaged that throughout the matching process, Lily will be placed with a family that can fully meet her current and future needs and will emotionally invest in her in building positive relationships and attachments and will provide her with a sense of belonging, while at the same time acknowledging and sensitive managing her identity with the birth family history. An adopted family will likely invest emotionally in Lily, which in turn will provide her with a greater chance of developing positive esteem and better outcomes in life and meeting her fuller potential, which will enable her to become an emotionally healthy adult. Adopters are able to access the adoption support fund to help manage any difficulty with Lily and have post-adoption support should this be required. (b) DisadvantagesAdoption permanently severs the child's legal link to their birth family. Lily knows and loves her family and father and would likely find the prospect of permanent removal from their care with limited opportunities for future contact very upsetting. [Pausing there, that is a surprising comment given the age of Lily at the moment.] Lily would experience a permanent separation to her birth family, and her identity needs would be somewhat impacted on. Adoption will sever ties with Lily's birth family by preventing her being raised by her birth family, which could affect her sense of self and emotional well-being as well as impacting on her feelings of loss. Lily will lose the ability to ask questions about her birth family directly from family members and will be reliant upon her adopted family, her agency file and the life story books and letters for information regarding her own birth story. This may lead to gaps and loss of information and loss in regard to maintaining birth family relationships, particularly if she is unable to find the birth parents in the future. There is no guarantee that any adoptive placement would not break down, with the propensity of impacting upon Lily. (c) Range of assistance and support that could be made available by the local authority and/or others Lily would continue to have the support of the local authority until the adoption is complete. The family would then have access to post-adoption services if necessary. Lily would have life story help to help her understand and make sense of her journey. Lily would receive a later-in-life letter from the social worker to help her understand why certain decisions have been made. Lily would have a life story book to take with her to their adopted placement.Range of powers available to the court in this scenario: a placement order(e) Whether in the light of the above analysis, the option as assessed is realistic or notGiven Lily's age, an adoptive placement appears to be a realistic option at this stage."
[29]The guardian's analysis it is at page 14 of her analysis. It largely follows the local authority's analysis, and I shall not extend the length of this judgment by repeating it. The main issue between the advocates for the father and the mother on the one hand and for the local authority and the guardian on the other hand are whether to make a placement order immediately, dispensing with the parents' consent, or whether only to make a care order. Although there is no formal concession, it is not suggested that Lily should return to her mother's care immediately. Instead, the main submission on the mother's and the father's part was that the mother was making changes and that it was desirable to delay the case a further six months in order that the mother could show that she had made changes. If the mother had not shown she was able to make the necessary changes in six months, then adoption could be looked at again.[30]Ms Slater for the father submitted that children adopted under the age of two had a prospect of bonding with any prospective adopters, so a six-month delay in deciding on whether to place Lily for adoption would not be harmful. I disagree with that submission. Any delay is likely to be harmful as a matter of fact. If Lily is to be adopted, it should be done as soon as possible. Further, section 1(3) of the 2002 Act provides:
"The court… must at all times bear in mind that, in general, any delay in coming to the decision is likely to prejudice the child’s welfare."
[31]I turn then to the welfare checklist, and I will go through section 1(4) of the 2002 Act. The first matter I need to look at is:(a) The child's ascertainable wishes and feelings regarding the decision considered in the light of the child's age and understanding. Given she is a five-month-old child, it is not possible to ascertain her wishes and feelings.(b) The child's particular needs. She has the ordinary needs of a child of having proper support, emotional support and physical well-being.(c) The likely effect on the child throughout his life of having ceased to be a member of the original family and become an adopted person. There is no doubt here that there will be an effect on Lily made throughout her life if she is made the subject of an adoption. On the other hand, at the moment the mother is unable to provide the necessary support for her, and the father is clearly not suitable as a carer. There are no other options because there are no other members of the parents' families who are able to assist, so there will be an effect there.(d) The child's age, sex, background and any of the child's characteristics which the court considers relevant. Here the most important factor is that she is a five-month-old child and that at that age adoption has a very reasonable prospect of success.(e) Any harm within the meaning of the Children Act 1989 which the child has suffered or is at risk of suffering. I have dealt at length with the risk resulting from the mother's vulnerability and her inability to protect either herself or, I find, Lily from abusive and coercive partners. (f) The relationship which the child has with relatives, with any person who is a prospective adopter with whom the child is placed and with any other person in relation to whom the court or agency considers the relationship to be relevant, including(i) the likelihood any such relationship continuing and the value to the child of its doing so,(ii) the ability and willingness of any of the child's relatives or of any such person to provide the child with a secure environment in which the child can develop and otherwise to meet the child's needs.(iii) the wishes and feelings of any of the child's relatives or of any such person regarding the child. As regards this, the local authority propose to have a form of indirect contact once a year and are open to investigating the possibility of a more open adoption where there might actually be face-to-face contact between at least Lily and her mother. These matters, though, are not such that they mean that when one stands back from the checklist, the need to provide stability and permanence for Lily is outweighed by the risks of her being returned to her mother's care[32]I have of course regard to the whole range of powers available to me. Realistically in this case, the only alternative to adoption is the possibility of a care order, which would be reviewed then after six months. When I look at the matter globally, in my judgment the only course here is adoption. In my judgment there is on the balance of probabilities no reasonable prospect of the mother changing her personality and being able to interact with her vulnerability so as to provide a safe environment for Lily within any reasonable time from Lily's perspective. The mother will remain a vulnerable person, liable to exploitation by violent and coercive men. She will be unable to provide a safe home for Lily, and that will continue to be the position for any reasonable period of time. I fully take into account Lily’s and the parents’ Article 6 and Article 8 rights, but this is a case where in my judgment sadly nothing other than adoption will do.. Accordingly I make the placement order. It is a case where it is appropriate to dispense with the parents' consent to the placement order.[33]The local authority have made various proposals for possible post-adoption contact. These are not matters on which I am asked to make orders, and I therefore do not.