J (A Child) (Public Law: inadequate risk assessment), Re [2026] EWFC 137 (B)

[2026] EWFC 137 (B)
In the Family Court
Date of Judgment: 5 June 2026
Before
RECORDER AMANDA BEWLEYRe J (A Child)(Public Law: inadequate risk assessment)
Between
X LOCAL AUTHORITYClaimantMUDefendantFADefendantJDefendant(a child, by her children’s guardian)Defendantsitting on 23, 24, 25, 26 & 27 March 2026DefendantX LOCAL AUTHORITYMUFAJ(a child, by her children’s guardian)sitting on 23, 24, 25, 26 & 27 March 2026Judgment handed down at a hearing on 5 June 2026This judgment was given in private. The judge gives permission for this version of the judgment to be published on the condition that (irrespective of what is contained in the judgment) in any published version of this judgment the anonymity of the child and members of their family must be strictly preserved. This judgment has been published on the advice of the Designated Family Judge for the area in which the court sat.The applicant is X local authority represented by Hope Lappin, counsel, instructed by the authority’s legal department.The mother, MU, represented by Helen Wrenn, counsel.The father, FA, represented by Julie Forsyth, counsel.The child, J, represented by Ginnette Fitzharris, counsel, via the children’s guardian, Mr U.Date 2026-06-05
[1]I am concerned with the welfare of J, a one-year-old little girl. J’s interests have been represented by her children’s guardian, providing instructions to Ms Fitzharris, counsel.[2]J’s parents are the first respondent mother, MU, and the second respondent father, FA. They have been represented by Ms Wrenn, counsel; and Ms Forsyth, counsel, respectively. Each parent holds parental responsibility in respect of J.[3]Proceedings have been brought by X local authority (“the local authority”), represented by Ms Lappin, counsel.[4]I am grateful to all counsel for their skilled representation of their respective clients, and for the sensitive way each approached this final hearing. III. ISSUES BEFORE THE COURT AND PARTIES’ POSITIONS[5]The matter is listed for a final hearing on the local authority’s application for a care or supervision order issued when J was one day old. Unfortunately, the timetable for the final hearing was insufficient for me to deliver a properly reasoned judgment at the conclusion, and this has resulted in further delay to enable the court to produce its written judgment.[6]The local authority, supported by the children’s guardian, invites me to make care and placement orders in respect of J.[7]The mother invites me to refuse the local authority’s application, and invites me to make orders which ensure that J is returned to her care. The mother contends that she is able to safeguard her daughter from the risk posed by the father and any other predatory paedophiles, and that she can otherwise meet the needs of her daughter to a good enough standard. If I am not confident to make that decision at this hearing, the mother says it is because there is a gap in the evidence in terms of assessment of her ability to offer safe and good enough parenting to J, and that gap can only be filled by directing further expert assessment of her, and that I should adjourn for the same.[8]The father supports the mother’s case. The father invites me to make a welfare decision that it is in the best interests of J to have a goodbye contact with him. IV. THE LAW[9]The parents accept threshold is crossed pursuant to s.31(2) of the Children Act 1989. I therefore have jurisdiction to make a public law order under Part IV of the Children Act 1989. I must go on to consider what, if any, order or orders are in the child’s best interests following a full welfare analysis.[10]J’s welfare is my paramount consideration. The lodestar for my welfare assessment is s.1(3) of the Children Act 1989. I have also applied s.1(4) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 which is engaged in respect of J. The need for a comparative analysis of the realistic options is by now well-established law. (See Re G (A Child) [2013] EWCA Civ 965 §49-50 and Re BS Children [2013] EWCA Civ 1146)[11]I must undertake a holistic evaluation of J’s welfare needs, and thereafter an analysis of each of the options available for meeting her welfare needs in order to decide which of the options best discharges the duty to afford paramount consideration to her welfare throughout her life, in a manner that is proportionate and compatible with the need to respect any Article 8 rights engaged (Re W (Adoption: Approach to Long-Term Welfare) [2017] 2 FLR 31). I have considered the options for J by applying the considerations set out in Re B-S (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 1146. Adoption is an option of last resort, requiring a high level of justification and only ordered in exceptional circumstances, where nothing else will do.[12]Where making findings of fact, I do so on the simple balance of probabilities with reference to the totality of the evidence. The burden of proof rests with the party seeking to prove the allegation (here, the local authority).[13]It is not uncommon for witnesses to tell lies in the course of their evidence. I bear in mind that a witness may lie for many reasons, such as shame, misplaced loyalty, panic, fear, and distress. The fact that a witness has lied about some matters does not mean that he or she has lied about everything (see R v Lucas [1981] QB 720). Lord Lane CJ said the following in Lucas: “To be capable of amounting to corroboration the lie told out of court must first of all be deliberate. Secondly it must relate to a material issue. Thirdly the motive for the lie must be a realisation of guilt and a fear of the truth. The jury should in appropriate cases be reminded that people sometimes lie, for example, in an attempt to bolster up a just cause, or out of shame or out of a wish to conceal disgraceful behaviour from their family. Fourthly the statement must be clearly shown to be a lie by evidence other than that of the accomplice who is to be corroborated, that is to say by admission or by evidence from an independent witness."[14]It would overburden this judgment if I were to include a full summing up of the evidence, and if I were to address individually every argument put forward on behalf of each of the parties. Simply because I do not mention a potentially relevant piece of evidence or argument made on behalf of a party does not mean that I have not considered the same in my evaluation of the evidence and arguments. This judgment needs to be read as a whole: taking individual sections out of context will not allow the reader to understand why I have made my decisions.[15]Under s.21(3) ACA 2002, a court may not make a placement order unless satisfied either that each parent with parental responsibility has consented to their child being placed for adoption, or that his or her consent should be dispensed with. In this case, J’s parents each have parental responsibility, and each of them oppose adoption. Under s.52(1)(b) ACA 2022, the court may dispense with a parent’s consent if the welfare of the child requires that consent be dispensed with. A placement order can therefore only be granted for J if I am satisfied that her welfare requires her parents’ consent to be dispensed with.[16]I have reminded myself of the Public law working group: adoption sub-group (“PLWG”), final report and recommendations for best practice in respect of adoption, published on 7 November 2024. There are important principles set out within that report.[17]The report recommends significant changes in how social work practitioners, legal practitioners and the court approaches the issue of post-adoption contact. Under “General recommendations” at paragraph 71, page 36, the report states, “There needs to be a sea change in the approach to the question of face-to-face contact between the adopted child and the birth family or other significant individuals. Greater consideration needs to be given, throughout the child’s minority, as to whether they should have face-to-face contact with those who were significant to them before they were adopted. It is recognised that this will not be safe for all adopted children, but the current system whereby face-to-face contact is the exception rather than the rule is outdated.”[18]At page 44, paragraph 82(iii), courts are reminded that they can use s.26 ACA 2002 to set out clearly the assessed needs of the child to stay in touch with the relevant members of their birth family beyond the point of the placement order (where prospective adopters may or may not yet be identified), particularly in cases where it would be detrimental for the child to have contact cut off at that stage. It adds, “Any such orders end when the adoption order is made, but they may set the tone for what is planned will happen after the adoption order …”[19]The report includes excerpts from the 2012-2013 House of Lords Select Committee on Adoption Legislation report on post adoption contact. This includes the following quoted from paragraph 256 of that report, “The principal concern was about understanding the purpose of contact. Sue Berelowitz, the Deputy Children’s Commissioner, told us that decisions about contact needed “to be based on what is right for this individual child, rather than blanket decisions that this is always the right thing to do.””[20]At paragraph 52, page 29:
“The House of Lords Children and Families Act 2014 Committee which reported in December 2022 concluded that, “Contact, where safe, appropriate and properly managed, can be valuable for an adoptive child, their new family and their birth family, including siblings and other relatives. However, contact orders and support can vary, and the current system of letterbox contact is outdated. The failure to modernise contact threatens to undermine the adoption system.” (Emphasis added by the PLWG)
[21]The guidance also refers to the lectures given by the previous President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, on the issue of post-adoption contact which includes the importance of courts giving consideration to the issue of long-term contact at the placement order stage of proceedings, reiterating that the opportunity exists at that juncture to set the tone for contact.[22]In the recent case of Re B-A (Placement Order and Contact Order) [2026] EWCA Civ 356 the Court of Appeal upheld a first-instance decision to make a s.26 order. I note that in the judgment delivered by Cobb LJ (as he then was), it was emphasised that a prominent theme of earlier authorities, and reiterated in that case, is that whether to make an order pursuant to s.26 is highly fact-sensitive, but also noted a theme in recent authorities for setting a template for contact via the vehicle of a s.26 order. V. BACKGROUND[23]The father is a registered sex offender. Indecent images of children were found on his devices after police executed a warrant for his arrest in 2020. It was discovered that the father had been presenting himself as being a child in discussions with another child. Images found on his devices included this young victim, who unwittingly sent videos and images to the father, not knowing that he was a man in his 40s who was using specialist software to make copies of those indecent images. Other images included children as young as two years old being sexually abused. The father was convicted of offences relating to this, receiving a term of imprisonment and mandated to sign the Sex Offenders Register. The father is subject of a Sexual Harm Prevention Order (SHPO) which prohibits him from having any unsupervised contact with any female child under the age of 16 and has strict conditions regarding ownership of electronic devices. At the time of his arrest, the father was working as a sports coach and lunchtime assistant at a school, and was living with his wife and children.[24]The parents met at a choir when the father was 50 years old and the mother was 20 years old. They later joined a choir for vulnerable people at the suggestion of the father. The parents commenced a relationship shortly thereafter. The father states that the parents actually met earlier in the year, however nothing turns on the specific date. At the commencement of their relationship, the mother was around 20 years old and the father was around 50 years old. The mother was and is vulnerable: she experienced multiple adverse childhood experiences, including her siblings being removed from her parents’ care when she was 7 years old due to concerns of neglect, domestic abuse, and allegations of physical and sexual abuse against her father. One of the mother’s brothers is on the Sex Offenders Register for making indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs of children, serving a term of imprisonment for the same. The maternal grandfather has passed away, and the only person who knows the mother well and who can support her is the maternal grandmother. However, children’s services were involved in respect of the maternal grandmother’s children and two of her sons were removed from her care. All parties in these proceedings have told the court that children’s services failed the mother in her childhood, and there ought to have been an intervention to protect her from the adverse childhood experiences she endured.[25]The first time the parents had sexual intercourse, the father did not use contraception. Not long into their relationship, the parents discussed having a family and, remarkably, the mother’s pregnancy with J was planned. Prior to this, the father had discussions with his offender manager about what would happen if the mother were to conceive, and it was made clear to him that a notification would be made to children’s services.[26]The mother became pregnant and was delighted to be growing her family as it was something she had desperately wanted. The father did not volunteer to his offender manager that the mother was pregnant. However, he was questioned when an image of an ultrasound scan was found on his phone, and claimed this was his sister’s scan. That was a lie, and the mother’s name was clearly visible on the image. When challenged about this, the father admitted to the mother’s pregnancy. Whilst the mother attended antenatal appointments, she did not inform healthcare professionals that the father was on the Sex Offenders Register although she gave them the father’s full name, date of birth and address. The mother was 5 months’ pregnant when her pregnancy finally came to the knowledge of those concerned with keeping children safe.[27]J is the mother’s first child, and the father’s fifth child. The father was previously married and had four children in that marriage. The father does not have an ongoing relationship with any of his older four children. The father told me in his evidence that following the publication of his offending, someone threw a brick through the window of the former family home, and this hit one of his daughters on the head. Despite the father knowing in absolute terms the impact of his offending on his ex-wife and four older children, including one of them coming to physical harm, and despite it being as plain as it could be to him that a pregnancy with the mother would result in the involvement of children’s services, he selfishly had sexual intercourse on the first occasion with the mother without contraception, and went along with this vulnerable, young woman’s desperately held desire to have a family, knowing full well the awful consequences this was likely to bring. Even after children’s services became involved, the father continued to put huge amounts of emotional pressure on the mother to remain in a relationship with him, going to extreme lengths including manipulating multiple professionals to assist him in selfishly pursuing his emotional needs over the safety and needs of J and the mother. I return to this later when detailing the father’s evidence.[28]Prior to the institution of proceedings, the local authority undertook a prebirth assessment of the parents. This noted that they lived in parlous home conditions, and the mother lived with the maternal grandmother with evidence that they neglected the home conditions. The risk posed by the father was highlighted within that assessment. The parents were presenting as a couple and had no intention of separating. No alternative carers were identified within the family network.[29]An interim care order was made in May 2025 and J was placed in her mother’s care at a residential unit. Subsequently, the mother has admitted that she shared the postcode of the residential unit with the father and that there was an arrangement whereby the father would transport the maternal grandmother to the residential unit to have contact with J. This risked the identity of the whereabouts of that placement and exposed the vulnerable residents therein to risk of harm.[30]In November 2025, it came to light that the mother had been communicating with the father via the Vinted app and had meetings with him, which she has maintained were not planned, on three separate occasions in a local city centre when enjoying time in the community with J. At a hearing on 11 November 2025, the Designated Family Judge sanctioned the removal of J from her mother’s care, and J has been in a foster placement since. I am told that J has been settled and is thriving.[31]In December 2025, the father was arrested for breach of his SHPO as he was in possession of three unauthorised electronic devices, including one which was kept in his car. He entered a guilty plea to the breaches and received a sentence of 6 months’ imprisonment, suspended for 12 months, and a 25-day Rehabilitation Order.[32]The father is currently on police bail in respect of a set of very serious allegations of sexual offences against two vulnerable children from earlier this year. In light of that arrest, the local authority has been unable to source any contact supervision facility within the authority or outside the authority that is willing to manage the risk posed by the father. On 23 January 2026, the court made an order pursuant to s.34(4) permitting the local authority to suspend contact between the father and J. I pause at this juncture to reflect the multiple occasions when the father has manoeuvred himself into the lives of vulnerable children and vulnerable young adults: as a children’s sports coach, as a school lunchtime superviser, in a community choir and choir specifically for vulnerable people, attending a local mental health support group, grooming a youngster online, and – whatever the truth of the most recent allegations – he has been in the company of two children who are in care. He is a busker and is known to busk where there is a high footfall of children. He also visited a children’s toy shop at likely its busiest time with youngsters on a Saturday. In respect of his visit to the toy store, the father told me in a self-pitying tone that it was because it held warm memories of him attending with the mother on a Saturday when the store has special activities. I was not taken in by that explanation and am troubled by the high proportion of occasions when the father is frequenting places dense with children and/or vulnerable individuals. The father has wished to distinguish his attendance at the local mental health support group and the two choirs from other occasions where he has manoeuvred himself into the lives of vulnerable young adults and children as he says he had been referred to those places as a consequence of poor mental health, and those places were aware of his offending history. VI. THE EVIDENCE[33]There are three bundles: the main bundle, a supplemental bundle containing documents which were missing from – and should have been contained within – the main bundle, and a placement bundle. These form over 1,000 pages of evidence. I have read all of the evidence.[34]Threshold has been agreed in the following terms (reworded slightly): Involvement with Children’s Services The parents engaged with the local authority during pre-proceedings. However, insufficient progress was made, in particular with regards to the home conditions of both parents Neglect The mother’s home conditions were unsanitary The mother’s home was a fire hazard as a result of significant hoarding and collection of rubbish The home was malodorous, smelling of cat urine, and there were cat faeces throughout the mother’s home The father’s home conditions were poor and unsanitary On 10 October 2024, the police reported significant concerns in respect of the father’s home conditions, describing them as a “health hazard” due to “evidence of faeces ground into the floor, we then noticed millions of flies, they were fruit flies and were everywhere, every surface was moving.” Risk of sexual abuse The father is a convicted sex offender The maternal uncle is a convicted sex offender, and was at the time of issue serving a sentence for breaching his restrictions The mother lacks insight into the risks posed by the father and maternal uncle The father informed the mother that his convictions had been as a result of a “misunderstanding” and the mother accepted that explanation The father has committed further offences within proceedings, and is under investigation Domestic abuse The mother was a victim of domestic abuse from her older sibling in 2023 Father’s mental health The father attended at his GP in September 2022 due to auditory hallucinations telling him to take his own life The father has accepted that he struggles with his mental health, and that he has at times suffered with auditory hallucinations Parental dishonesty with professionals The father failed to inform his offender manager that the mother was pregnant, and misled them by stating that a scan picture found on his mobile telephone was his sister’s scan. The parents continued to communicate with each other during proceedings, despite having ended their relationship.[35]I heard oral evidence from Ms T, social worker and residential placement assessor; Ms R, the allocated social worker; Ms S, a support worker who offered advice and assistance to the parents via a charity; each of the parents, MU and FA; Jennifer Alcott from the Lucy Faithful Foundation who assessed each of the parents and undertook work with the mother; and Mr U, the children’s guardian.[36]I was impressed with the evidence of Ms T. She had produced detailed written evidence and was entirely straightforward and balanced in her oral evidence. I formed the impression she would have been very supportive and approachable when working with the mother over a prolonged period of 26 weeks at residential placement, where the usual assessment period is 12 weeks. Ms T told me that her addendum assessment which recommended that J and the mother move into supported accommodation with an intense package of support was made prior to becoming aware of the clandestine contact which took place between the parents via the Vinted app, and prior to becoming aware that the mother had seen the father on three occasions in the city centre, having not reported that to police, social care or staff at the residential placement. Ms T had read the updating evidence including the positive Lucy Faithful Foundation assessment, and the final evidence of each of the parties, and told me that her recommendation was no longer for a community-based assessment as had been her recommendation in October. Whilst she felt that the mother’s basic parenting skills had improved during her time at the residential placement, and these had been assessed as good; and whilst her assessment was that the mother is motivated to change and has capacity to change, Ms T felt there were fundamental issues with openness and honesty which undermined the safety of a placement with the mother, and she was of the opinion that the route to change and assessing whether the mother is able to sustain change sadly fell outside the timescales for J. Ms T was positive about the mother’s basic parenting, but ultimately was not assured that the mother had insight into the risk posed by the father and assessed her as being unable to manage that risk.[37]Ms T gave evidence about how the mother told her about the meetings with the father in the City and contact via the Vinted app. There were a couple of key elements to this evidence: first, the information was disclosed only after the mother became aware that there was to be forensic analysis of her phone; and second, the information came about piecemeal over the course of a full day and ongoing questioning and probing by Ms T. In my judgement, it could not be sensibly argued that this was information volunteered for any other reason than the mother thought it would come to light once her phone was subjected to forensic examination.[38]I heard next from the allocated social worker, Ms R. I had no concerns about the way in which Ms R gave her evidence to the court. Ms R acknowledged that there are strengths and positives about the mother and her parenting of J. She also acknowledged that there were a number of struggles faced by the mother which were entirely outside the mother’s control. However, she maintained her position that the mother was not able to protect J from the risk of serious harm posed by the father, highlighting that regardless of whether the meetings in the City were deliberate and as a consequence of collusion between the parents, or the mother had been coerced by the father, or if they were chance meetings – the mother had not responded appropriately by notifying the professionals and authorities, and there was no confidence in the mother’s ability to respond appropriately and act protectively.[39]Regarding the issue of the father’s goodbye contact, Ms R stated that an external agency was not willing to supervise his contact, including a one-off goodbye contact, given the increased risk he was assessed as posing as a consequence of the recent investigation. Her evidence was that supervising even a goodbye contact was not manageable given the risk that the father poses. This was robustly challenged on behalf of the father, with a tone of incredulity. However, it is entirely reasonable that the risk presented by the father is too high to manage given his repeated ability to place himself into contact with vulnerable young adults and children.[40]I had to issue a witness summons to secure the attendance of Ms S at court as there had been difficulty obtaining a court directed statement from her, and securing her attendance to give evidence. Ms S is a support worker advocating for individuals in a community mental health support group. She is a retired children health and social care professional. The mental health group offers support to vulnerable individuals with complex needs. The father had been accessing support from this group, and they also latterly offered support to the mother. Ms S was directly involved with the father in 2023 and 2025, and with the mother for a single meeting at the residential placement in the summer of 2025.[41]I found Ms S’s evidence troubling. Despite having worked as a children’s social worker, familiar with child protection issues, she appeared – at least at the time of this happening – unable to appreciate how it would be inappropriate for her to have engaged with the mother at the request of the father, knowing his convictions, and to then visit the mother at the residential placement to, amongst other matters, discuss the parents’ relationship without notifying the local authority of this, and introducing herself to staff at the placement and to the mother as a social worker, which she was not acting as at that time. Ms S aligned herself with her colleague, Dr V. I heard, what was on the face of it, an extremely concerning recording made by the father of a discussion said to have taken place with Dr V. I caution myself to take some care about this given Dr V has not been called as a witness to confirm the accuracy of that recording. However, if that is an accurate recording, it demonstrates that Dr V made unprofessional comments and gave bad advice, for example suggesting that the mother’s legal team were “lazy” for advising the mother to separate from the father and that they needed a “thick ear” for giving such advice.[42]In her written evidence, Ms S described, “(mother) presented as a vulnerable and confused individual with unanswered questions. I suggested she speak with social care and her solicitor. I with her consent phoned and spoke to (mother’s) solicitor highlighting the questions she raised to be followed up the aim being to provide clarity.”[43]Ms S told me that she spoke to the mother about matters including the proceedings and the relationship with the father. My overarching concern here is that the father had successfully managed to co-opt professionals to assist him to achieve his selfish aim of maintaining a relationship with the mother. It is a sophisticated form of grooming. I bear in mind that if he was able to groom professionals, it is not surprising that he was able to groom the mother with all of her vulnerability.[44]I heard oral evidence from Jennifer Alcott from the Lucy Faithful Foundation. She had completed assessments of each of the parents and had undertaken an important piece of work with the mother to improve her insight into the risk posed by the father, and to understand and safeguard herself against grooming behaviour. It is right to reflect that whilst there was some good quality work undertaken with the mother, that significant elements of Miss Alcott’s assessment of the father were most troubling.[45]Miss Alcott had assessed the father as being a low risk of harm to J. However, since that assessment, the father had three convictions for breaching his SHPO, eight impending offences relating to children, and his offender manager had assessed him as being a high risk of harm. Miss Alcott stated that her earlier assessment was based on the information available at the time. I disagree. The earlier assessment was based, in my judgement, almost entirely on the self-report of the father, a man with an offending history which must put any professional working with him on notice of his capacity to be deceitful and manipulative.[46]Miss Alcott did not contact the allocated social worker, father’s offender manager or the therapist working with the father to verify his self-report or obtain their views to feed into her risk assessment. There was little cross-referencing against other sources of information such as the father’s police interview or his GP records, and little challenge of the father’s self-report. Miss Alcott did not meaningfully engage with the specific risk arising from the content of all of the material accessed by the father, including images of children as young as two years old, instead doing little more than recording that it was difficult to determine what led to those images appearing on the father’s devices due to him denying the same, recording the father’s explanation that those could have been on his devices due to downloading content for illegal firesticks or from within chats where such images may have been shared. There was no engagement with what the risk might be if the father had deliberately accessed those images and was being untruthful in his account to Miss Alcott. Miss Alcott concluded that the risk factor of sexual interest in children was not present based on the information she gathered in her report. However, she did not engage with this meaningfully with reference to the material found on the father’s devices, the father’s relationship history including commencing his relationship with his ex-wife when he was 18 years old and she was 14 years old, the father’s choice to commence a relationship with the mother, aged 20 and 30 years his junior, who looks as young as a teenage girl (I note this from my own observations of seeing the mother in court, and note from the evidence that the mother is able to travel on buses on a child’s ticket), and considering where he chooses to work and spend his time.[47]Miss Alcott simply recorded that a parent of a child who attended the school where the father worked reported a concern to the police that her child might have been sexually abused by the father. It was clear from her written and oral evidence that she had not discussed that report with the father.[48]Additional information has subsequently come to light which would not have been available to Miss Alcott at the time of her assessment, but there was a myriad of sources of information which were not explored, and information directly available which was not scrutinised with vigour.[49]Miss Alcott concluded in her assessment, “Whilst it is difficult to know for sure, it is clear that factors such as mental health difficulties, loneliness, fear of abandonment and rejection, as well as a breakdown in his relationship contributed to his overall behaviour at this time.” By way of illustrating my concern at the robustness of this conclusion, I note that Miss Alcott recorded in her assessment, “At the time of the offending, problems with stress and coping and problems with self-awareness were both present. Since this time, he has worked on strengthening both of these and so they are now scored as partially present.” However, there was no verification of this with the therapist working with the father, and the conclusion reached that they were only partially present was based on the father’s self-report. A further example is in respect of her assessment of the father’s “manageability” which she scored as partially present “due to him not informing probation about (mother) becoming pregnant and initially lying when asked. Aside from this (father) appears to have cooperated with both probation and children’s services since his release and there have been no further concerns identified.” However, no enquiries were made of the father’s offender manager or of the allocated social worker about this, and there was no challenge of discrepancies between the father’s accounts of his offending behaviour and thus the father’s honesty during the assessment process.[50]The father’s medical records show that in 2020, after his arrest and whilst he was still under investigation, he reported that at the time of writing to the female child via SnapChat that he believed that he was a teenage boy, and that he heard voices and felt compelled to act on those, feeling as though he had two personalities which talked to one another, where one was him and the other was someone different. Miss Alcott confirmed that the father had not said this to her, but it is also clear that she did not explore this with him or factor it into her risk assessment, including whether there was a genuine psychiatric issue or whether the father had been deceiving his GP.[51]Miss Alcott based her risk assessment on self-report from the father that he initially believed his victim to be in her thirties and continued speaking to her after discovering she was a teenaged child, at that time pretending to be a teenage boy. Miss Alcott did not have the father’s police interviews or request them. However, within the police evidence available to her at the time was a statement summarising the father’s first police interview in which it records that the father told the police the victim told him she was a teenaged child. During that police interview, he did not say that he initially believed her to be in her thirties. This was not challenged with the father. Worse still, rather than working on the basis of the father’s account to the police that he knew his victim was a child, Miss Alcott said this in her assessment:
“During the lead up to the offence, (the father) also felt as though his partner was belittling him, particularly regarding his looks and sexual performance. Meanwhile he had been using the internet to download software for ‘firesticks’, as well as being involved in group chats on Kik. Whilst speaking to the victim (the father) described feeling listened to and less alone, which led to him continuing to speak to her after finding out she was (a teenager). It is my formulation that (the father) did so due to his feelings of rejection and abandonment being triggered within his relationship, as well as feeling lonely, this meant that when feeling wanted by the victim he was motivated to continue speaking to her, overlooking the age. This can also be seen within his first relationship and the concerns about the age difference with (the mother). Additionally, (the father) created a fake profile, posing as a (teenaged) boy when speaking to the victim. This is likely to have been a method to facilitate the offence, as well as (the father’s) strong desire to be accepted by others. With his low self-worth at the time, it is my suggestion that (the father) pretended to be someone else in order to avoid judgment and rejection.”
[52]Miss Alcott told me the practice of relying on self-report and the assessor’s professional judgment is in accordance with the professional standards expected of her and in accordance with utilisation of the Risk for Sexual Violence Protocol Tool Version 2 (“RSVT assessment tool”). It was conceded in oral evidence that the method of assessment could be vulnerable to being exploited by a manipulative or deceptive individual who could, with their self-report, influence the outcome of the risk assessment with false or incomplete information. I find all of this most troubling. The court asks experts to undertake risk assessments of these kind to keep children safe, and to hear that such assessments rely on self-report and professional judgment rather than evidence such as but not limited to police forensic reports stating what material has been accessed, verified information from the subject’s childhood, and information which has been verified by the professionals working with the offender, is chilling. I recognise that risk assessments of these kind are complex and there are limitations when relying on self-report and thus caution must be exercised – as appears to be acknowledged within Miss Alcott’s assessment when read as a whole. However, what concerned me most here was that there were multiple avenues ripe with information which could inform the assessment, and which could either corroborate or refute the self-report of the father, and those avenues were left unexplored such that the ultimate risk assessment lacked vigour and ultimately failed to properly identify the nature and extent of the risk posed by the father. All of that said, Miss Alcott, in identifying the risk posed by the father to J as low, did state, “It is important to note that whilst risk towards (J) is currently assessed as low, it is still present. Therefore, it is essential that a robust risk management plan is in place for (the father) to continue having contact with (J). This includes practical steps, such as contact being supervised, as well as management of the risk factors identified above.” In addition, she told me that they are moving away from categorising risk as low, medium or high as it can present challenges in terms of what that risk actually means. As will be clear, my concern is that in the absence of a robust risk assessment identifying as far as possible the risk factors which are present, formulating an effective risk management plan is compromised. I am satisfied that I have considered the totality of the evidence, the updating information and the parents’ oral evidence, and have been able to identify the risk of sexual harm posed by the father in sufficient detail to enable me to make decisions in this case without the need for further assessment. The father poses a significant risk of sexual harm to vulnerable young women and children. I detail throughout this judgment other areas of risk posed by the father relating to subterfuge, use of technology and emotionally abusive, manipulative and grooming behaviours.[53]In respect of the first assessment of the mother, the mother now accepts that she was dishonest in her assessment undertaken by Miss Alcott. During the currency of the assessment, the mother had continued clandestine communication with the father via the Vinted app and did not disclose this to Miss Alcott. Miss Alcott told me that any assessment is context-dependent, and further told me that it can be undermined by dishonesty. Miss Alcott told me she assessed the mother as having some key knowledge but requiring significant further work, and later the mother demonstrated improved understanding of protective strategies. One of the concerns highlighted during the currency of the evidence is that there is a difference between theoretical knowledge and real-world application of it, and that the mother may well have that theoretical knowledge but not be able to apply it in emotionally complex situations such as seeing the father in the City whilst she was with J. Miss Alcott was positive about the mother, noting that she had reflected on her past behaviour, and understood that she had previously been dependent upon the father emotionally, and that there were unhealthy power dynamics in the relationship, including the significant age difference. The mother also demonstrated insight into the reasons for her past dishonesty including the fear of the consequences, and because of her own personal history. I was told implementation of this insight and knowledge would be key, and there had not been an opportunity to test this out since the assessment and that therefore remained unassessed. In my judgement, whilst there are serious concerns regarding the method of the assessment predominantly of the father, I was satisfied that those issues which had been identified in the assessment of the mother had resulted in positive work being undertaken with her which has improved the mother’s knowledge-base, a good foundation on which to build. However, it remains unknown as to whether what the mother says and knows can be put in place in practice. In my judgement, it would be critical that the mother’s honesty and trustworthiness is beyond reproach if any further assessment included J being in her care.[54]I heard from the mother. In many respects, the mother was an impressive young woman. She is articulate and intelligent, and shining through her evidence was her obvious love and dedication to her daughter, J. It was abundantly clear that the mother had wanted to become a mother and loves being a mother to J. However, I found the mother was still unable to be fully open and honest with the court. I have considered why the mother has been unable to be consistently open and honest with me. I have considered whether it is because she is scared of the consequences of being honest. Certainly, the consequences of her telling Ms T when she did about the clandestine contact with the father were that J was removed from her care and placed in foster care, and the plan for a community-based assessment was abandoned. When asked about her inability to be open and honest with Ms T when ‘the cat was out of the bag’, my note of the mother’s evidence was, “I agree. (Ms T) was with me and saw how panicked I was. The social work manager came to visit me and I got it in my head that she was visiting to take (J) away and all the time I was waiting, panicking and feeling sick and the reason it took so long was because of my strong fear of losing (J) and that was my fear all along and even more so now, of course.” It is clear to me that the mother continues to be scared about being open and honest. However, that does not give me confidence about her ability to be open and honest in the future if J were returned to her care: indeed, having more to lose, I consider it likely that she would not be open and honest about some matters relevant to J’s safety.[55]During her oral evidence, the mother told me that she and the father had used the Freegle app to share photographs of her pregnancy tests via the messaging function. When asked why they used the Freegle app, the mother said it was because she had made a post on social media in respect of her father which had then been the source of ridicule and she wanted to avoid that. That explanation did not stand up: private communication via messaging or one of the many end-to-end encrypted messaging services does not risk ridicule from others because it is private. When this was pointed out to the mother, she maintained what was obviously a lie. She was asked whether the reason for sending those photos via the Freegle app was to avoid the father’s offender manager becoming aware of the same when scrutinising the father’s phone. The mother said that was not the reason why. However, I reject entirely that explanation, and the obvious and most likely explanation for this subterfuge was because the parents were aware that the offender manager would notify children’s services of the mother’s pregnancy if the pregnancy came to their knowledge. I gave the mother multiple opportunities to be honest about this, even telling her that I was finding it difficult to accept her explanation, but she remained steadfast in maintaining her lie.[56]Regarding the parents’ communication via Vinted, they used an elaborate system of communicating. They set up a single account to which both had the username and password. That account was available on each of their phones. The father sought to have me believe that it was almost chance which made them realise that they could communicate with one another in the manner in which they did, and they discovered it when one of them had noticed the other had liked an item which might be meaningful to the other. I reject that. The mother said that she first noticed that the father had used the search bar to tell her that he missed her and she had responded in kind. In my judgement, it is more likely than not that this was an agreed means of communicating. What they did was to type messages for one another in the search bar, and to like items such as baby grows with “I love my Daddy” on it, or by liking trinkets which were meaningful to the two of them. Neither parent has been fully open and honest about this method of communication. It only came to light because the mother believed the forensic examination of her mobile telephone would expose the communication between her and the father. It was also only then that the mother said there had been what was described as chance meetings in the City on three occasions. I will return to those meetings shortly.[57]In my judgement, this elaborate and sophisticated form of communication was deliberately employed to ensure that their communication would not be discovered. This court commonly encounters those who access child sex abuse imagery online using elaborate ways to avoid detection, and it is clear that the father used such ways and means to attempt to keep the communication with the mother hidden from professionals tasked with keeping J safe from the risk he poses both in terms of his communication with the mother via Vinted and Freegle.[58]It has been said on behalf of the mother that she is incredibly vulnerable and she required time to psychologically separate from the father. It is right that the mother is incredibly vulnerable and has been a victim of the father’s grooming behaviour. Nonetheless, there is a degree of subterfuge to which she was an active party which seriously undermines her ability to keep J safe, and to work openly and honestly with professionals. The mother has not offered satisfactory explanations in respect of this.[59]I was also concerned about the mother not presenting a fully open picture to the court. For example, she was taken to one of her statements wherein she denied any contact directly or indirectly with the father via any platform. It was put to her that was a lie, and her response was that her phone was checked daily and the father was blocked, but she agreed “with the point that there was that extra part of contact on Vinted for that short period of time.” That response showed little insight or acceptance into her level of dishonesty and gave the distinct impression of minimisation coupled with splitting hairs, which gave me little confidence in her ability to be open and honest with the court. Another example of splitting hairs to the point of being misleading was when she was asked about the use of the Freegle app. It was put to the mother that she had claimed not to have done online shopping before when asking for help to set up an account on Vinted, yet she had used the Freegle app, and my note of her response was “That is free though. I started in placement with an account. I didn’t do shopping.” My impression was that the mother was seeking to persuade me that she was not able to set up herself on Vinted to shop because she didn’t have the technical know-how, and her previous use of Freegle and Vinted was not evidence of the technical know-how which would be required to set up her Vinted account to make purchases. I reject the mother’s explanation and find it entirely unlikely that she would have been incapable of setting up a payment account. In my judgement, it adds further concern to the level of her deceit that she pretended not to have the technical ability to set up her Vinted account to make purchases, and this concern is compounded by her inability to be straightforward about it at this final hearing.[60]A similar approach was taken to the issue of sharing information with midwifery pre-birth. The mother said she had shared the name, date of birth and address of the father with midwifery and, in essence, my understanding is she wanted me to accept she had therefore given them the information they needed about him. However, she did not volunteer critical information which would have been obvious to her would need to be shared, that being that the father was a convicted sex offender. I was not impressed that the mother was unable to accept in her evidence that was a serious omission, and a clear example of not being open and honest with professionals for the protection of J.[61]Regarding the mother’s dishonesty about the meetings in the City, the mother told me she was worried that people would think those meetings were pre-planned. One of the meetings was said to have taken place on a morning in August 2025 outside the mother’s college when she had attended to obtain her examination results. The mother said that the father shouted her name and asked if she had her results and asked how J was. She claims she said she could not talk and had walked away. She had then encountered him following her around a supermarket about 40 minutes or so later and she shook her head and ignored him.[62]The next occasion was on 6 September 2025 at an arts centre in the city. She had seen the father near her bus stop and he had put an ornament in J’s pram. The father said that he was busking in one of his favoured spots of which the mother was aware.[63]The third occasion was on 13 September 2025 inside a museum just after 2pm. The mother says she ignored a question the father asked her, and left the museum. She walked towards a local landmark, and the father came from behind her and grabbed her arm. She said she had to go and the father placed a figurine into J’s pram. The father told me he had obtained the figurine from a toy shop on a Saturday morning when they run events which the parents had attended previously. The mother said she threw that in the bin before getting back to the residential placement. The mother thought she had also seen the father sitting near a bus station on the same day.[64]The mother only reported these meetings when her phone was being analysed which suggests she was fearful that the meetings would become known during that analysis. However, nothing in the phone analysis would have revealed those meetings. It is therefore not possible to identify if the parents communicated about those meetings in some other way. The phone analysis did show that the mother’s phone was in the proximity of an Apple air tag on 34 occasions between 6 June 2025 and 24 October 2025, a device which relays live location data to the associated owner’s Apple account, but the owner of that device has not been identified.[65]The mother has suggested that the meetings with the father were chance meetings save for the first when the father would have known that the mother was collecting her examination results and waited for her near her college. In the alternative, she said she suspected he was tracking her. I struggle to accept that these were chance meetings, especially given the mother did not report them at the time, and only volunteered them when she thought she was about to get caught out. The father sent a message to the mother on 28 June 2025 suggesting that if they could have supervised time in the community then they could go to the museum or around a specific landmark. I find it hard to accept the two seeing one another at precisely those locations was a coincidence. Neither parent has been honest in their evidence about these meetings which were not, in my judgement, chance or a coincidence. I struggle to accept that this was all due to the father tracking the mother, otherwise I consider she would have more likely than not been forthcoming about her concerns about stalking behaviour at the time. In my judgement, these were more likely than not deliberate meetings in the community including J and in the absence of any professional supervision.[66]I was concerned not just by the subterfuge in app use, I was also concerned about messages between the parents which appeared to employ the use of a code word “mopping” for when it was and was not safe to be in communication. Messages between the parents spoke about “mopping” not in the context of cleaning taking place, but in the context of sharing that being “vital to us having contact”. Whilst the parents denied this was a code word in their oral evidence, and the mother claimed it related to cleaning her residence at the placement, the context made it plain to me that it was a code word to ensure that they could continue to communicate. Again, neither parent was honest about the extent of the communication and subterfuge.[67]Where I had been impressed with the mother’s evidence was in respect of what she said she would do in the future: she would use Clare’s Law in respect of domestic abuse and Sarah’s Law in respect of child sex abuse, and she would undertake these checks on any prospective future partners in the future. However, I accept the viewpoint put forward by the children’s guardian that saying the right thing and being able to implement it in practice are very different things. The mother knew the right thing to do when the father was communicating with her via Vinted, and when there were no less than three meetings in the City, but she did not do the right thing, and she only did the right thing of volunteering that communication and those meetings reluctantly and when it became clear to the mother that her phone would be forensically examined and she believed those matters would come to light.[68]In terms of the mother’s knowledge regarding the father’s offending, she told me in her evidence that she had read the published reports regarding the father’s offending and admitted that she had “overlooked” them. My note of what she said was, “I guess that was because it was a lot to read and I did not want it to be true … I agree there was some slight avoidance on my part that shouldn’t have been.” The mother told me that reading the descriptions of the images accessed by the father had “made it more real” and “disturbing” adding, “unimaginable things were wrote there and it made it more realistic what he was capable of and his ideas and his sexual preferences and it is scary to know that.” However, the published reports detail that images found included a girl as young as two years old. I therefore accept the concern of the children’s guardian that the mother had some prior knowledge of the father’s offending and did not act proactively to protect herself or J.[69]I heard evidence from the father. The father came across as entirely self-concerned and painted himself as a victim. I made a note during his evidence that he felt very sorry for himself. He appeared not to have realised that he had been entirely selfish from the moment he commenced a relationship with the mother and throughout these proceedings. He is extremely manipulative, and attempted to win the sympathy of the court by telling the same lies as he had told previously about his offending history.[70]The father has cerebral palsy and epilepsy. He does not work, but busks. As I have detailed elsewhere, the father frequents places where he has ready access to children and vulnerable people. He has lived in totally unsanitary conditions in his home, including it being totally infested by flies with the police describing there being “millions” of them in the property and that “every surface was moving”.[71]The father has recently been arrested in respect of extremely serious allegations of sexual offences against two teenaged children. Those allegations are yet to be tried and have not been determined at this final hearing, but the police evidence includes CCTV footage showing the father with the two children.[72]I have read messages sent from the father to the mother around the time of their separation. They are highly emotionally manipulative and abusive. Within those messages, he wrote at length to the mother in self-pitying tones, and ultimately threatened suicide. The father also coopted Dr V and Ms S to assist him in attempting to maintain his relationship with the mother.[73]The father’s evidence underlined for me the significant risk he poses through manipulation, lies, grooming, and placing himself, his desire and his needs front and centre of his actions above all else. He presents himself as a victim and, in my judgement, is likely to continue to do so, continuing his actions of convincing the unwitting person that he is not predatory and does not have a sexual interest in children. At one stage of his evidence, he suggested that he had been asphyxiated at birth and this meant he was not able to retain full information and caused him to act impulsively. The retention of information point related to not retaining the terms of his SHPO. This was in stark contrast to him retaining all of the dates of various meetings between him and the mother and recalling those with ease.[74]The father is able to utilise technology to his advantage, and preys on vulnerable people including the mother. He has been able to manipulate professionals, and much care needs to be taken when managing the risk he poses. During his evidence, in a rather more unguarded moment when saying he had approached the mother in the community, the father accepted that he is impulsive and unable to control himself. I accept that evidence.[75]Despite my serious misgivings about the father, I accept that he loves J.[76]I heard evidence from Mr U, the children’s guardian. I found him to be balanced and fair in his evidence and recommendations to the court. In short, even after robust cross-examination, Mr U maintained his recommendations as set out within his final analysis.[77]Mr U told me that when he met with the mother for preparation of his final analysis, she gave only the most basic answers to questions about what she would do if safeguarding issues arose in the future. The mother’s response to this is that the visit was rushed and at a difficult time of the day. Whatever was said to Mr U, it is clear to me that the mother had far more detailed answers to questions around safeguarding J in her oral evidence to me.[78]Regarding a wish-you-well contact between J and her father, he said any such contact had to be in J’s best interests and he did not feel that such contact would be in her best interests. He told me that it is highly probable that she will now have no memories of her father, and that she will not remember any future contact. He had also considered the recent arrest which suggests an increased and escalating risk, where J’s safety had to be paramount. He told me that in line with the local authority, he did not feel there were protective measures which could manage the risk posed by the father. He agreed that the local authority should explore the possibility of post-adoption direct contact between J and her mother if the court makes a placement order, but that potential risks would have to be assessed and carefully managed.[79]Mr U told me that he had observed one of the mother’s contacts with J and it was positive: the relationship is lovely and there was positive interaction, with J smiling, babbling and waving. He told me that the mother is fully committed to J and her love of her daughter is “not up for debate”, and the love is reciprocated. VII. WELFARE ANALYSIS[80]There are only two realistic options before me: that I return J to the care of her mother, with further assessment either under a final care order or keeping proceedings open, or that I make orders allowing her to be placed for adoption. There are no family members who have been positively assessed to care for J, and the father sensibly accepts that placing J with him is not a realistic option. No one suggests that long-term foster care is a realistic option for J.[81]In undertaking a global and holistic analysis of the realistic options, I have clearly in my mind s.1(3) CA 1989 and s.1(4) ACA 2002 and have afforded weight to each of the matters listed in those checklists. Ultimately, the magnetic factors have been any harm which J has suffered or is at risk of suffering and how capable the mother is of meeting J’s needs. I have given particularly careful consideration to the likely effect on J (throughout her life) of having ceased to be a member of her original family and become an adopted person, and the relationships that J has with each of her parents and the likelihood of those continuing and the value to J of them doing so.[82]J is described by all in the warmest tones. She is thriving, happy, and a bubbly little baby girl. She is loved by both of her parents. Her birth was planned and the mother welcomed and has relished motherhood, and loves J very much. J has no known medical needs and is meeting all of her developmental milestones. J has four paternal half-siblings, none of whom she has met as those children are estranged from their father. J will come to learn in due course and have to come to terms with the circumstances of her life to date, including periods of time in her mother’s care in a residential setting and with foster carers, as well as the fact of her father’s convictions in respect of offences relating to online sexual abuse of a child and possession of child sex abuse images. Her life experiences to date will mean J will likely require emotional support beyond that which a child without those experiences might require. J requires a secure and loving home where all of her needs are met in safety. These are long-running proceedings and J requires permanency without further delay.[83]The mother has been observed to meet J’s basic care needs, though there are concerns about neglect due to the parlous conditions of her home prior to J’s birth, and whether J’s needs can consistently be met by the mother away from the relatively protective and supportive environment of a residential setting is untested. There could be further assessment of this under continuation of the proceedings or a final care order. That would afford the chance to J to be placed in her mother’s care. However, it would lead to delay in permanency and there are safety concerns which prevent such a placement being viable for J, as I describe elsewhere in this judgment.[84]The mother has attended all of the family time sessions following J’s removal from her care and is clearly committed to the care of her young daughter. The mother has been able to have some positive engagement with professionals but has struggled to be open and honest about significant issues relating directly to the safety of J and the risk posed by the father. The mother is vulnerable as a consequence of her early life experiences, and she has been exploited and manipulated by the father. The key concern is the mother’s vulnerability and whether she could identify risk and keep J safe from harm posed by the father and other individuals who would wish to exploit the mother’s vulnerability. The local authority and the children’s guardian advise me that the mother cannot identify risk and protect J from risk of harm, and that to place J in her care would be to expose her to risk of suffering significant harm. I agree with the local authority and the children’s guardian.[85]J is too young to express her wishes and feelings but she has a lovely relationship with her mother and I proceed on the basis that she would want to be brought up by her mother if it were safe for her. If J is placed with her mother, she will have an ongoing relationship with her mother and there will be more opportunity for contact with wider family members who are safe, bearing in mind that there are individuals within both the maternal and paternal family with whom it would not be safe for J to have a relationship. This outcome would likely accord with what J would want if it were safe for her. If J were placed for adoption, whether or not she would continue to have direct contact with her mother or father is uncertain, but there is a real risk that there would be no direct contact with either parent, and almost certainly not with the father, given the risks inherent in facilitating direct contact and maintaining the privacy of the whereabouts of the placement. The loss of a relationship with members of her biological family would have a profound impact on J throughout her life and would have an impact on her sense of identity. I consider that the loss of direct contact with her mother is likely to have a more significant impact on J than the loss of the relationship with her father because J experienced the first six months of her life being cared for by the mother, has an ongoing loving and warm relationship with her mother during consistent sessions of family time, and because J will come to understand in due course that the mother has been let down in childhood and exploited by the father, and it will doubtless be painful for her to learn that along with the fact that her mother desperately wished to care for her.[86]If I place J with her mother, this will meet her identity needs now and in the future on her maternal side. If the placement were successful, then it would meet J’s identity needs on her maternal side throughout her life. I consider there would likely be tensions regarding promoting J’s identity on her paternal side, and difficulties managing the risks arising from any ongoing relationship with the father, which might only safely be managed via indirect contact. That aspect of J’s identity is likely to remain a weak spot to the father’s manipulation and propensity to behave in wholly self-serving ways. If J were to be placed for adoption, this would cut the ties between her and her biological family for all time. A placement order is a most draconian order, and I would only make such an order if nothing else will do to meet the welfare needs of J. The bar is set high for good reason: because the consequences of becoming an adopted person are lifelong and profound. For J, she would be most affected by the loss of her mother, and will need to process likely difficult emotions surrounding her mother’s vulnerabilities, the reasons for those and her father’s exploitation of them with the knowledge of her mother’s fight to retain J in her care.[87]Moving to the risk of harm and the mother’s ability to meet the needs of J. The parents have engaged in sophisticated and persistent subterfuge to avoid the detection of authorities: first during the mother’s pregnancy, to avoid this becoming known to the authorities; and second by communicating via Vinted post-separation. This level of deceit erodes all trust in either parent, and that trust needs to be rebuilt before one could be satisfied in the safety of any arrangement which sees J living with her mother. Key to rebuilding trust is for there to be total candour. Sadly, the mother was not honest with me in her evidence. In addition, I was concerned about the mother’s care to point out that she provides only information she is asked about, including in her evidence, when it was clear to me that there was further relevant information that she was withholding. Such was my concern that I reminded the mother of the wording of the oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth – meaning that withholding information which presents the whole truth is not in the spirit of that oath.[88]My decision is not about being punitive in any way, and there are very many positives about the mother. But given the serious risk of sexual harm that the father poses, the history of his manipulation of the mother and professionals, and the sophisticated means he has employed to further his interests above anyone else’s, I must be confident in the mother’s ability to offer information – all relevant or potentially relevant information – and tell the truth. Sadly, I have very little confidence in her ability to do that, and I consequently do not have confidence in her ability to safeguard J from the father or any other risky individuals who might seek to exploit the mother’s vulnerabilities. In addition, the mother poses a risk from her active involvement in the subterfuge which she has not been able to admit and explain, and I am not confident that this would not be repeated in the future, to the detriment of J.[89]I accept and adopt the evidence and analysis of the children’s guardian regarding the mother’s ability to protect J from risk. Although there has been an improvement in the mother’s level of insight, particularly after the work undertaken with her by Miss Alcott, “47. …insight alone does not equate to the ability to apply safeguarding measures consistently, particularly when under emotional pressure, isolation or without direct professional oversight.48. As evidenced throughout this report, this remains an ongoing and significant risk. In my assessment, (the mother) has repeatedly demonstrated difficulty translating learning into safe, protective action when required. Her past actions and behaviours indicate that, without continuous and intensive professional support, she is unable to reliably identify risk or maintain boundaries to keep (J) safe.49. Furthermore, even with extensive professional involvement, as has already been provided, there is no assurance that (the mother) can consistently implement the necessary safeguards. The evidence indicates that when faced with “real-world” situations, she struggles to implement measures, prioritise J’s needs, and respond protectively. This creates an unpredictable and unsafe environment for J, particularly given the level and nature of risk posed by her father.50. On this basis, it is my professional conclusion that (the mother’s) capacity to protect J is compromised, and the risk to J would remain high without 24/7 professional supervision and oversight. Even with such support, there is no reliable evidence that (the mother) would be able to maintain the level of vigilance required to safeguard J effectively.”[90]The mother says that I could make orders to safeguard any placement with her including a non-molestation order or prohibited steps order. However, successful operation of those orders would require the mother to report breaches of them and I have no confidence in the ability of the father to abide by such orders, bearing in mind his three breaches of his SHPO, and I have very little confidence in the mother’s ability to volunteer any such breaches, not least because of her complicity in clandestine meetings and communication with the father.[91]I am asked to consider adjourning if there is a gap in the evidence regarding the mother’s ability to offer safe and good enough care to J, but I do not see any such gap and do not see that delay for further assessment would be purposeful.[92]Adoption would afford J with the opportunity to grow up in a safe, stable and permanent family she can call her own, and where her needs will be consistently met. She will be able to develop secure attachments and experience stability of care after the experience of two placements in her short life thus far. The mother’s proposal, in comparison, provides a lack of certainty and would result in a high level of professional involvement whilst simultaneously exposing J to risk of significant harm.[93]I have balanced all of the competing factors as set out above. Whilst there are clear benefits of placing J in her mother’s care, fundamentally that would be an unsafe placement, exposing J to risk of direct and indirect sexual harm, exposure to risky individuals, and to the repercussions of community backlash as was seen when one of her paternal half-siblings received a head injury from a brick launched through the father’s previous family home. In my judgment, the best interests of J can only be met by an adoptive placement. Sadly, even within the confines of the intense observation and supervision of the residential placement, the parents directly exposed J to risk of harm and even 24/7 oversight would not sufficiently ameliorate the risk.[94]For the same reasons that I have concluded that only adoption is in J’s best interests, I conclude that J’s welfare requires that she should be placed for adoption and, given her parents’ opposition to the same, my welfare determination requires me to dispense with the consent of J’s parents to adoption, pursuant to s.52(1)(b) ACA 2002, and I do so dispense with their consent.[95]The local authority has said it will explore with prospective adopters the possibility of direct contact between J and her mother. The children’s guardian supports this plan. The mother wishes me to make an order to set the tone for those discussions, accepting such an order will not bind any future adopter to promoting direct contact. In my judgement, there is a clear risk to the location of the placement of J with any adopters being compromised by the parents’ willingness to exploit available technology for their own benefit rather than prioritising J. This risk is specific to these parents, rather than a general comment on the advances in technology and how those can be exploited, and it arises from my findings regarding the sophisticated means the parents used to communicate, utilising available technology in creative ways to avoid detection, and compromising the safety of J and other children and vulnerable people by sharing the location of the residential placement and clandestine meetings in the City.[96]When a child is placed for adoption and post-adoption direct contact is being considered, the need for parents to work consistently constructively, honestly and safely with the professionals is of the utmost importance as there needs to be clear boundaries and expectations which are followed, and trust to ensure that risks can be managed. As matters stand, the evidence does not support there being confidence in such a relationship being fostered by either parent with local authority professionals in the future.[97]The issue of post-adoption contact is a matter which will remain under review during the placement process, and can be revisited under s.51A ACA 2002 when the court is making an adoption order, or after it has made an adoption order. However, at this juncture, I am clear that the risks I have identified militate against making the order sought on behalf of the mother. In coming to that decision, I have considered the benefits to J of having direct contact with her parents which are as set out in the call for a sea change in the PLWG guidance, including that it would afford her the opportunity to have a meaningful understanding of her identity and life story; the emotional benefits of having her birth parents being a tangible, in-person, presence in her life; and that it would demystify her birth parents to her. I also accept unconditionally that the mother adores J, and that the two of them have a warm and positive relationship. While these are weighty considerations in favour of direct contact, they are outweighed at present by J’s paramount need for permanence, stability, and security in her placement. Accordingly, I do not make an order for direct contact, though accept the local authority will explore this and the risk present at the point at which adopters are being identified for J. Direct contact needs to reduce and the plan set forward looks reasonable, but would of course be subject to review if it were moving at a pace which was not meeting the best interests of J.[98]Regarding the father’s wish-you-well contact, the local authority has told me that neither it nor any agency it uses to supervise contact can manage the risk that he presents. There are no other options available to ensure that he can have a wish-you-well contact. The children’s guardian supported the making of the s.34(4) order and supports the continuation of it, recommending to the court that any future or final contact should be indirect given the risks posed by the father. Whilst it would be most unusual for a parent not to have a wish-you-well contact, I note that the father’s risk has been categorised as high from Probation, and my own assessment of his risk is that he poses a risk of harm to vulnerable young women and children. I remain concerned that the father has at the very least ensured that he has been able to meet with the mother and J in the community on at least three occasions and that there is a real risk of him attempting to find out where J lives. Whilst it will be devastating for the father not to have a wish-you-well contact, J is so young that she will not have an immediate appreciation of that contact having taken place, and there has been a significant gap since she last saw her father so she may not recognise him. In addition, there are images and recordings of contact between the father and J which can be used for the purposes of her life story work to her benefit in the longer term. When strictly applying what is in the best interests of J, the risk of compromising the identity of her placement, and the risk to other individuals attending contact centres, is not outweighed by the potential benefit of J knowing in the future that she had a specific wish-you-well contact with her father. Consequently, I will not direct the local authority to provide such a session of contact.[99]In bringing this judgment to an end, I wish to reflect that the mother has a number of positives, as detailed at various places in this judgment, and she is a loving mother who would never want J to come to any harm. Miss Wrenn, on her behalf, made powerfully moving arguments in closing submissions, and made every sensible argument possible on behalf of the mother. I know my decision will be awful for the mother. I hope she will understand that I have made the only decision I could to keep J safe, and it is J who has occupied front and centre of my decision-making. I admired some of the progress the mother has made, and respect her love and commitment to her daughter, and I encourage her to continue on her path of progress.[100]In conclusion, I make final care and placement orders in respect of J in favour of X local authority.