The Local Authority v C & Anor [2026] EWFC 121 (B)

IN THE LIVERPOOL FAMILY COURT

Case No LV26C50100

[2026] EWFC 121 (B)

Courtroom No. 25

35 Vernon Street

Liverpool

L2 2BX

Date Thursday, 9 th April 2026

Before

HIS HONOUR JUDGE PARKER

B E T W E E N:

THE LOCAL AUTHORITY

C & D

MR M SENIOR appeared on behalf of the Applicant Local Authority

MS M GILCHRIST (instructed by Hogans Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the Respondent Mother

MS HARRISON (instructed by Haygarth Jones Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the Respondent Father

MS N WINGFIELD (Solicitor) appeared on behalf of the Child through the Guardian)

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

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

The Local AuthorityClaimant

Respondent MotherDefendant

Respondent FatherDefendant

HHJ PARKER:

[1]I am dealing with the child A. A was born on [redacted]. She is presently in foster care under an interim care order made on 18 February. She appears through the Children’s Guardian, B, who gives instructions to Ms Wingfield. The applicant Local Authority has brought the application for an interim care order, and they are represented by Mr Senior. The mother is C. She is represented today by Ms Gilchrist. She has made an application for a parenting assessment by an independent social worker. The father is D. He is not in attendance today. He did not attend the previous hearing, and he is represented today by Ms Harrison.

[2]The mother has been involved in proceedings before, as has the father. The background to the application is that each has had significant involvement with the Local Authority previously. The mother, herself, has three older children that no longer reside in her care. The older two children reside with the father, and the youngest has been adopted. Concerns relating to the mother centre around her ability to recognise risk and low cognitive functioning, which impacts on her ability to provide basic care for the child.

[3]The father also has three older children. These children were subject to care proceedings before me, initially, due to concerns in relation to the number of injuries they were receiving, which were said to be due to a lack of supervision, but also pursuant to findings by me, inflicted by the father. Proceedings concluded with supervision orders in May 2024. The Local Authority subsequently sought to extend the supervision order, but, in fact, the matter concluded in December 2025, with the making of care orders for all three children with plans of long-term foster care. The parents also have an older child together, E, who was born on [redacted]. He was made subject to care and placement orders by me in October 2025.

[4]A was referred to Local Authority Social Care on 20 November 2025 when the mother presented at hospital, and the pregnancy was confirmed. This was a late presentation. Her due date was estimated to be 15 February. The Local Authority initiated pre-proceedings. The matter was listed for an initial hearing on 17 February but adjourned until the 18th. At the hearing on 18 February, the Court refused the parents’ application for a residential placement and sanctioned placement in foster care.

[5]The Local Authority filed a statement in respect of any further assessment of the parents, setting out their position that they did not consider that further assessment of these parents was necessary to enable the Court to deal with proceedings justly in light of the number of previous assessments that there had been.

[6]Pursuant to the Court’s direction, the mother made her application for an assessment by an independent social worker. In a statement in support of her application, she said this:

“I believe that there has been a significant change in our circumstances since E was placed for adoption. D was limited previously in terms of his available resources. Now, A will be our joint sole focus, and I believe that together we can meet her needs and offer her a safe and happy childhood. I am eager to work with the Local Authority, and I would happily take classes, join groups or undertake one-to-one work to improve any areas of parenting that I struggle with. I will be content to do this throughout A’s childhood so I can adapt as she develops and grows. I am opposed to the Local Authority’s plan for A, and I seek the return of her to my care and the care of D. I feel that further assessment of us is needed and that we should be given an opportunity for this.”

[7]In a statement of 28 March 2026, the father set out his position:

“Although C and I don’t live together, we are committed to each other and plan to co-parent, with A living in C’s home. I am also looking at my housing situation and considering whether I should give up my own house, as I no longer need a three-bedroom property. This will be for a joint assessment, and I can confirm that I will engage with the assessment if the application is successful. As stated in my response to threshold, I do believe that my circumstances have changed significantly since the proceedings concerning A’s older brother, E, during which ultimately led to them being removed. This was an enormously stressful period, and I acknowledge that I did struggle to manage the behaviour of my oldest son, in particular, due to his specific needs arising from his ADHD diagnosis. If A were to be returned to our care now, she would be my sole focus on a day-to-day basis, and the situation would be much more manageable. I, therefore, do believe that an up-to-date assessment of the current position is required.”

[8]In oral submissions, on behalf of the mother, Ms Gilchrist reminded me that the mother has a huge number of positives. In previous assessments, she was shown to demonstrate emotional warmth, love and affection for A’s older brother, E. She fully engaged with the Local Authority. She is willing to do anything that is asked of her. She has attended all contacts and demonstrated commitment to the children. There is no issue with substance or alcohol misuse. She has been in a relationship with the father since 2024.

[9]In dealing with E, her older brother, there was an addendum parenting assessment that followed two sessions and two observations of contact in May 2025, she said. She said it has been 12 months since the addendum report and 18 months since the full assessment. She argued that there has been a change in circumstances in that the father had three children in his care who were subject to a supervision order during E’s proceedings. They had their own difficulties and were older. Caring for A as a young baby would be very different. The three older children would not be in the care of the father.

[10]She suggested that the father was able to support the mother. The mother needed to have a fair and full assessment as to whether, combined, they could care for A. The mother wanted A to be in her care. If there was no assessment of her parents, then the Local Authority will say that the Court should make a placement for adoption order. She argued that when A comes to an age where she wants to know what decisions were taken about her and why, it is necessary to show that the mother had a full and fair assessment of her ability to care for her.

[11]In addition, she argued that the Local Authority should file a plan of work that they would undertake with the mother. She also invited me to consider the judgment of Knowles J in Nottinghamshire v XX & YY

[2022] EWFC 10

, in which Knowles J, before concluding judgment, gave guidance in dealing with cases where a parent has a learning disability. She suggested the following:(1) The good practice guidance of working with parents with a learning disability should be an essential part of the continuation of training for social workers and managers.

(2) There should be timely referrals to Adult Social Care for a parent with learning difficulties without a very lengthy gap after a referral.

(3) Parents with learning difficulties involved with Children’s Social Care, where a child is on a child protection plan, should have their own advocate as a priority. A referral for that service should be made as soon as practicable.

(4) The support available to a parent with learning difficulties should be distilled into a simple document identifying what is available, how often it is available, timescales for its availability and who is responsible for its delivery. Such a document should be shared with the Children’s Social Care if involved and discussed with the parent in the presence of their advocate.

[12]Ms Gilchrist also argued that as the Local Authority do not plan to do anything other than seek a placement order in respect of A, it would not be fair, just or proportionate to refuse the application for an independent social work assessment. She acknowledged that the mother had been assessed a number of times but suggested it was not right to suggest that the mother’s difficulties were static. She did not really advance a compelling reason for her argument in that respect, in my judgment.

[13]Whilst she sought to argue for a change in circumstances, because the father no longer has care of the three older siblings, it was conceded that, at the time the Court made the final decision in respect of E, the three children had been removed. She was also unable, in my judgment, to establish any evidential link between the parents’ inability to provide good enough and safe enough care for E in the past and A in the future by reference to the father simply having the care of the three older children.

[14]The essence of all of the expert evidence, which I will touch upon later in this judgment, in the previous proceedings, was that the parents were unable to provide good enough, safe enough care, and the risks could not be managed without intensive lifelong professional supervision. Those were the findings I made in the previous proceedings, which, as Mr Senior pointed out, were not appealed. In my judgment, there has to be a causative link between the deficit in parenting and the circumstances that are said to have changed. That link is not made out evidentially.

[15]Ms Gilchrist conceded that it was disappointing that the father was not attending contact with A, but argued that he would care if A was put in the mother’s care. The Local Authority oppose the application. In their position statement prepared by F, dated 2 April 2026, they say this:

“As stated within the Local Authority position statement dated 5 March 2026, the Court will be aware that C and D currently have eight children between them, all of which have been subject to at least one set of public law proceedings. None of the children of D or C currently reside in their care. As per the initial social work evidence template of the previous social worker, G, care proceedings for C and D’s older child E concluded in October 2025, with a placement order granted, and care proceedings for the father’s three older children concluded in December 2025 with care orders. These very recent conclusions reflect persistent and serious concerns that remain highly relevant to the risk profile for a baby.”

[16]Within these previous proceedings, extensive assessments were completed, including parenting assessments of both C and D. These assessments all report negative findings in regard to parenting, alongside cognitive and developmental assessments. The Court has previously been made aware that several cognitive assessments have been completed with C, PAMS assessments and three ParentAssess assessments as recently as late as 2025. All of these assessments concluded negatively.

[17]In the ParentAssess addendum statement completed in 2025 as part of previous proceedings, C is said to have been:

“…offered and engaged with intensive levels of parenting support over several years of Social Care involvement. It is evident that despite C’s best evidence to improve and develop her parenting abilities, she is unable to meet the basic care needs of a child or children in her care.”

[18]In view of D, he has also undergone several ParentAssess assessments himself, both singularly and jointly with C, which have all concluded negatively. These assessments highlight that:

“D continues to present significant and persistent deficits in his parenting, including an inability to provide safe and consistent care, poor supervision and the continued use of harsh and emotionally harmful discipline such as physical restraint, withholding food and drink and prolonged punishment. He struggles to meet the children’s physical and emotional needs, offers limited emotional warmth and frequently becomes frustrated or angry, escalating the children’s dysregulation. Despite extensive support and multiple parenting interventions, D is unable to retain or implement strategies, largely due to his learning needs and poor insight, leaving any child in his care at ongoing risk of emotional and physical harm.”

[19]It is noted within C’s statement that she is requesting a joint ParentAssess assessment due to a change in circumstances. The Local Authority’s position is that:

“Due to several previous ParentAssess assessments, there has been no change with C or D’s abilities and cognitive functioning, so the risks remain static. In view of the current situation with regard to previous and recent parenting assessments completed with both parents and these concluding as negative assessments, the view of the Local Authority remains that any further parenting assessments will unjustly prolong the proceedings, whilst still highlighting that C and D are unsuited to meet the basic care needs of A. The needs of both C and D are static in nature, and we cannot rule out previous incidents of non-accident by D.”

[20]Mr Senior invited me to consider section 13 of the Children and Families Act 2014 and, in particular, subparagraph 13(7) too. He also invited me to consider the final report of the Public Law Working Group and, in particular, paragraph 168, which deals with the increase in the number of experts and, in particular, highlighted by the group, Independent Social Workers. He also invited me to consider the guidance given by the President on the use of experts in various publications. He also invited me to consider the overriding objective under the Family Procedure Rules at paragraph 1.1.

[21]He suggested that the Local Authority had to proceed on the basis of the Court’s previous findings that the risks to a young child, such as E and, therefore, A, were static and enduring and that the parents could not provide good enough and safe enough care without intensive, lifelong professional supervision. He also invited me to consider page C23 in the bundle and the list of previous assessments of the parents. He said that the Local Authority would be in a position to provide its final evidence by 15 May 2026, some five weeks hence, subject to a satisfactory adoption medical.

[22]On behalf of the father, Ms Harrison sought to explain his non-engagement in contact and non-attendance at the court hearing by the fact that he was feeling depressed. He had been to his GP and was taking antidepressants, she said. He was not attending contact as he has been told that it is a fait accompli, and his reaction was understandable in light of his cognitive function. She maintained that his relationship was, nevertheless, one of ongoing support of the mother.

[23]Her instructions are to be contrasted by the unchallenged account of the Children’s Guardian of conversations with the parents in her position statement dated 23 March 2026, in which the Guardian reported as follows:

“10. The Guardian has now been out to see A and has held a telephone call with the parents. The Court will see it appears that the father is refusing to attend contact with A in protest against the Local Authority because his family time with his elder daughters is not being adhered to as he wishes. He is seeing his eldest son, H, every other week… 14. The Guardian asked whether the father was present. The mother confirmed that he was and that he could hear the conversation. The Guardian requested to speak with him directly. He confirmed that he had read the Local Authority’s evidence, and when asked for his views, the father stated, ‘I’m making it hard for them until they sort out my contact with my daughters’. He explained that he had not seen his daughters since February, and that he intends to be difficult until the Local Authority apply to the Court to alter the frequency of contact for them… 17. When asked about the father’s views on contact, the mother reported that he had attended only two sessions because he is focused on wanting to see his older daughters. The Guardian subsequently spoke with the father again. He confirmed that he had attended only two family time sessions with A. When asked why, he again expressed frustration at not seeing his older children, stating he is ‘not playing ball with them’, the Local Authority. ‘I’m playing hard ‘cos my time with my girls is court-ordered. The Guardian attempted to explore the father’s reasoning for withholding attendance at A’s contact sessions as a form of protest regarding contact with his older daughters, but the father did not provide a further explanation. When Mother was asked by the Guardian for her view on the father’s position, she stated that it was ‘not fair on him seeing his other kid and not his girls’.”

[24]Ms Harrison also invited me to consider the positives in the father’s case set out at J82, which I do, of course. She suggested that the picture was now very different as he was no longer caring for the three older children, who had their own issues. She criticised the Local Authority for not providing evidence of support or services that could be put in place to improve the situation and enable the parents to care. In my judgment, she, too, was unable to establish an evidential causative link between the circumstances said to have changed and the assessment of these parents that they are unable to provide good enough, safe enough care for a child like E, and, therefore, as the Local Authority argue, A.

[25]On behalf of the Children’s Guardian, Ms Wingfield said that the Children’s Guardian supported the Local Authority’s position that there should be no further parenting assessment. For there to be further expert evidence, it has to be necessary, and it has to have purpose. The Children’s Guardian is unable to see what purpose would be served by a further assessment. The parents have been assessed extensively in the past. Here, the father was not assisting the mother with contact. The father was unable to make up for the mother’s deficits in her parenting in any event. She then identified a list of assessments that had taken place.

[26]In terms of those assessments, I note the assessment of I who undertook cognitive assessments of both parents. He considers that C is a woman of extremely low cognitive ability and that her Full Scale IQ is in the range of 65 to 73, placing her on the second percentile, and thus working below 98% of the population. Both verbal comprehension and working memory are similarly low in terms of functioning, though she has basic functional literacy. Her reading comprehension age is around the age of 10.

[27]I’s report in relation to D set out that he is a man of extremely low cognitive ability. His Full Scale IQ is in the range 76 to 72 [sic], placing him on the first percentile and, therefore, below 99% of the population. He does not have functional literacy. Notwithstanding his extremely low cognitive ability, he is able to understand and retain information within care proceedings.

[28]The parents have received a lot of support during pre-proceedings relating to E and undertaking work with the Triple P parenting courses, New Beginnings, Stepping Stones and the Chrysalis Centre. In the ParentAssess assessment by the independent social worker J of 24 June 2025, she said this at paragraph 10:

“Accolade weekly reports continue to recommend that D and C would benefit from engaging in parenting support. D and C have been offered and engaged with intensive levels of parenting support over several years, with Social Care involvement. It is evident that despite D and C’s best efforts to improve and develop their parenting abilities, they are unable to meet the basic care needs of a child or children in their care. There are concerns around C’s cognitive ability both historically and at present. There have been two cognitive assessments of C in 2020 and 2025. There have been two PAMS assessments of C in March 2020 and October 2020, and three ParentAssess assessments in 2021, 2024 and now 2025. All these assessments have concluded negatively and highlight a risk posed by C in respect of her low cognitive ability, which appears to be static, despite significant support. It is my professional opinion that both D and C are adults with significant vulnerabilities and difficulties which they, themselves, appear unable to recognise. Whilst I respect C and D’s wishes around wanting the children to be in their care with or without supervision, I do not feel it is in the children’s best interests. I have considered the option of the children remaining with C and D together or separately, and it is my view that C and D do not have the ability to meet the changing needs over the next 18 years, together or apart.”

[29]In the executive summary from my judgment in proceedings relating to E, I set out the following:

“The Background and Findings Both parents have a history of extensive involvement with Children’s Services. The mother has had three older children removed from her care, and the father has been the subject of a finding of non-accidental injury in respect of his oldest child. Multiple assessments, including cognitive and parenting assessments have concluded that both parents have extremely low cognitive function and limited insight into the risks that they pose. Despite engagement with support services and parenting programmes, the evidence demonstrated that neither parent has made sufficient or sustainable progress to safely care for E. The independent social worker and allocated social worker, and the Children’s Guardian all concluded that the risks to E were static and enduring and that neither parent could meet his needs without intensive lifelong professional supervision, which was not considered a viable or proportionate plan. No viable family members were identified as alternative carers.”

[30]In the social work statement of F, dated 5 March 2026, he said this:

“C is known to have learning needs which impact her cognitive ability. The impact of those needs on her parenting capacity has been assessed via two cognitive assessments in 2020 and 2025, two PAMS assessments, both in 2020 and three ParentAssess assessments in 2020, 2021 and 2025. All these assessments have concluded negatively and highlight a risk posed by C in respect of her low cognitive ability, which appears to be static, despite significant support. D has undergone several specialist parenting assessments with C, which have concluded negatively. These assessments highlight that D continues to present significant and persistent deficits in his parenting, including an inability to provide safe and consistent care or supervision and the continued use of harsh and emotionally harmful discipline, such as physical restraint, withholding food and drink and prolonged punishments. D has had previous support within his residency in relation to the care of his older children. C was also present for much of this naturalised parenting support. The support offered was 24 hours a day and seven days a week. Despite this support, D’s older children have since been placed into the care of the Local Authority. When they were removed from the care of D, it was identified that despite the provision of the highest level of support available, the concerns remained unresolved because neither D nor C were able to implement or sustain the most basic elements of safe and nurturing parenting. Both adults repeatedly failed to act on professional advice, and Accolade staff were required to intervene frequently to prevent immediate harm. The emotional climate in the home continued to be harsh and unresponsive, with both carers using inappropriate and prolonged time-outs, withholding comfort items and offering minimal affection or positive reinforcement. The level of support offered represented the maximum available resource, yet it did not reduce risk or lead to meaningful change. This shows that previously completed assessments and interventions were not effective, and further evidences the longstanding and static nature of the concerns. D and C were unable to retain advice given to them and apply it in different circumstances. This will be unchanged in any updating assessment.”

[31]The Children’s Guardian’s position statement of 23 March 2026, paragraph 21:

“Whether any further assessment is necessary in the context of parenting capacity is something that has been considered. The Local Authority have now filed a statement within these proceedings dated 5 March 2026, indicating that they do not consider that any further assessment would be a proportionate use of professional court resources and would not advance A’s welfare. The Local Authority assert that there is already an abundance of evidence before the Court in the form of previous assessments concerning the parents’ capacity and that the issues that have been raised are static and that parenting capacity will be unchanged.”

[32]The Guardian is in agreement that there is an abundance of evidence before the Court concerning both parenting capacity, and she does not consider that either parent has demonstrated that there has been any change of circumstances that would impact positively upon their respective parenting capacity. The father suggests not having his older three children in his care is a change of circumstances, meaning that he has fewer competing demands. However, the Guardian observes that his attendance at contact with A thus far, has been poor, and the evidence does not suggest that this has elicited an increase in his ability to commit to A in practice.

[33]I have regard to the provisions of section 13 of the Children and Families Act:

“(1) A person may not, without the permission of the Court, instruct a person to provide expert evidence for use in children proceedings… (5) In children proceedings, a person may not, without the permission of the Court, put expert evidence (in any form) before the Court. (6) The Court may give permission as mentioned in subsection (1), (3) or (5) only if the Court is of the opinion that the expert evidence is necessary to assist the Court to resolve the proceedings justly. (7) When deciding whether to give permission as mentioned in subsection (1), (3) or (5), the Court is to have regard in particular to: (a) any impact which giving permission would be likely to have on the welfare of the children concerned, including, in the case of permission as mentioned in subsection (3), any impact which any examination or other assessment would be likely to have on the welfare of the child who would be examined or otherwise assessed; (b) the issues to which the expert evidence would relate; (c) the questions which the Court would require the expert to answer; (d) what other expert evidence is available (whether obtained before or after the start of proceedings); (e) whether evidence could be given by another person on the matters on which the expert would give evidence; (f) the impact which giving permission would be likely to have on the timetable for, and duration and conduct of, the proceedings; (g) the cost of the expert evidence; and (h) any matters prescribed by the Family Procedure Rules.” (a) any impact which giving permission would be likely to have on the welfare of the children concerned, including, in the case of permission as mentioned in subsection (3), any impact which any examination or other assessment would be likely to have on the welfare of the child who would be examined or otherwise assessed; (b) the issues to which the expert evidence would relate; (c) the questions which the Court would require the expert to answer; (d) what other expert evidence is available (whether obtained before or after the start of proceedings); (e) whether evidence could be given by another person on the matters on which the expert would give evidence; (f) the impact which giving permission would be likely to have on the timetable for, and duration and conduct of, the proceedings; (g) the cost of the expert evidence; and (h) any matters prescribed by the Family Procedure Rules.”

[34]I appreciate that as the Local Authority is pursuing an application for a placement order in respect of A, that this is an extremely important, often difficult and challenging decision for the Family Court to make. I completely understand the point that a placement order presents a life-changing, lifelong change in familial circumstances for a child, and, for that matter, the parents. The Court must ensure that it acts in a way that is consistent with the child’s welfare and in ways that are proportionate to the issues involved. In this case, however, the Court simply cannot ignore the plethora of assessment evidence that there has been gained over five years or so in respect of both of these parents.

[35]I am absolutely satisfied that the Court has done everything it can in previous proceedings to ensure that they have been fairly assessed. In fact, the Court adjourned the final hearing to enable there to be an additional independent social work assessment of these parents in previous proceedings. I am also absolutely satisfied that the cognitive function of the parents has been given due weight and fairness has been observed, both in terms of their position in the PAMS assessment and the ParentAssess assessment of these parents.

[36]In those circumstances, there is a huge amount of assessment evidence in respect of the parents. Therefore, I struggle to see why it could be said properly that it is necessary and proportionate for the Court to direct yet another assessment. I say that, particularly in light of the previous findings that I have made, which were not appealed, that these were static risks in terms of the inability of the parents to provide good enough, safe enough care, and that in order to mitigate the impact of that inability, it would require lifelong, professional supervision of their care.

[37]In those circumstances, in my judgment, if the Court were to direct a further independent social work assessment, it would be an unnecessary step because of the amount of evidence that there is already available. It would also extend the timetable. The Local Authority are in a position where, subject to the adoption medical, they will be able to present their final evidence in five weeks or so. In addition, of course, it would come at a cost to the public purse.

[38]Those, in my judgment, are the magnetic features when one considers section 13. I also, however, also consider the overriding objective and the Family Procedure Rules 1.1, because the Court is being asked to make a case management decision. The overriding objective is there to enable the Court to deal with cases justly, having regard to any welfare issues involved. Again, I repeat, in terms of welfare issues, any adoption decision in relation to a child is of huge importance, both to the child and to the parents.

[39]Subparagraph (2) then gives a partial definition of “justice.” “Dealing with a case justly includes, so far as is practicable: (a). ensuring that it is dealt with expeditiously and fairly.” Here, this is a point that is made on behalf of the parents that, in essence, if the Court were to refuse the application for an ISW assessment in this case, in light of the fact that the Local Authorities are saying that they do not intend to further assess the parents because of the volume of evidence already available, the parents argue that that is unfair. Certainly, absent full and complete assessments as part of pre-proceedings, ordinarily, where an application for a placement order is made, all things being equal, the Court would look to assess the ability of the parents to care in the absence of pre-proceedings assessments. However, in this case, because of the number of children that these parents have had in the past, the extent of proceedings that there have been, the extensive assessments that have taken place, all geared to work around the cognitive function of the parents, the usual presumption of assessment is entirely displaced, in my judgment. That is not unfair, for the reasons that I have given. If, of course, I direct another assessment, then that will not be to deal with the matter expeditiously. That would cause delay, whereas if I refuse it, then that will achieve some expedition in light of the Local Authority’s suggested filing date for final evidence. “(b) dealing with the case in ways which are proportionate to the nature, importance and complexity of the issues.” Again, I recognise the argument that I think Ms Harrison or for that matter, Ms Gilchrist advanced, which is that the Court needs to deal proportionately with the proposed State interference in the life of A and the parents and the impact on their Article 8 rights to a private and family life. If, as appears to be the case, the Local Authority are to pursue a placement order in this case, I recognise the need for the Court to act proportionately, having regard to the importance and complexity of the issues. However, in my judgment, because of the volume of expert evidence that there is in this case, it would actually be a disproportionate step to order yet another assessment where the risk factors are static. I simply do not accept that removal of the three older children from the father’s care represents a change in circumstances where the circumstances were actually causative of the negative parenting assessments. The assessments, in my judgment, were very clear that this was about the parents’ inability to care for a child or children and not focus solely on the fact that the father had his hands full because he was looking after three challenging children at the time that he was seeking joint care of E with the mother. Accordingly, the change in circumstance, in my judgment, is not relevant to the Court’s consideration and, in any event, as was established during the previous hearing, the three children had been removed at the time the Court made a final order in respect of E. “(c) ensuring that the parties are on an equal footing.” Again, the parents may argue that if the parents are not given an assessment in respect of A, in addition to all the other assessments that they have had, in those circumstances, they have been left on an unequal footing because of the failure or refusal to assess them further. However, in my judgment, that would be to misinterpret the criterion at (c), ensuring that the parties are on an equal footing. They are on an equal footing. All are legally represented; the interests of the parents have been properly represented by counsel representing each of them, and the application made on behalf of the mother for ISW assessment. What has happened is that the cases have been presented on an equal footing and the Court has resolved the issue or will be resolving the issue by refusing the application. “(d) saving expense. Clearly, if I direct an ISW assessment, that will not save expense, it will incur it. “(e) allotting to it an appropriate share of the Court’s resources, while taking into account the need to allot resources to other cases.” Once again, we are potentially able to timetable through to final evidence and IRH today if the application is refused. If the application is not refused, then clearly, the proceedings will take longer, and, obviously, the impact on the ability to allot resources to other cases.

[40]Accordingly, having considered the matter and balanced out the competing arguments, in my judgment, the Local Authority’s position of opposing the application for an ISW assessment with the support of the Children’s Guardian is the right position to take. I am not satisfied that further expert evidence in the form of an ISW assessment and parenting assessment of either or both of the parents is justified in this case. It is not necessary to enable me to deal with proceedings justly.

[41]Therefore, the application is refused. 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