London Borough of Barking & Dagenham v Q [2026] EWFC 158 (B)

[2026] EWFC 158 (B)

Case No ZE26C50055

IN THE FAMILY COURT AT EAST LONDON

11 Westferry Circus

London

E14 4HD

Date 6 th May 2026

Before

HER HONOUR JUDGE REARDON

Re L (Forced Marriage Allegations)

Between

LONDON BOROUGH OF BARKING & DAGENHAMApplicant

(1) Ms QRespondents

(2) LRespondent

MS D BRYAN appeared for Applicant

MS R WILSON (instructed by Goodman Ray Solicitors) appeared for First Respondent

MS A BARTHOLOMEW (instructed by Cartwright King Solicitors) appeared for Second Respondent

JUDGMENT

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 and legal bloggers, must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so may be a contempt of court.

[1]These proceedings concern L, a girl aged 15. L is a national of Country A (a European country) who until February of this year was living in Country B (a Middle Eastern country). She has neither a home nor a parent in this jurisdiction. She is currently accommodated by the local authority in foster care under an interim care order.

[2]The parties to the proceedings are the local authority; L’s mother, Ms Q; and L herself. All parties are represented, L through her guardian and solicitor. She is a competent child and gives instructions directly to her solicitor and counsel. L gave evidence at this hearing and was present together with her guardian to hear the evidence of her mother. She is not present for this judgment, which will be explained to her in due course by her guardian.

[3]There are two applications before the court. The first is the local authority’s application for a care order, issued on 6th February 2026; the second is the local authority’s application for a forced marriage protection order, issued on 5th March 2026. Both applications are based on identical facts, namely allegations made by L that she will be at risk of forced marriage if she returns to her mother’s care in Country B.

[4]On 23rd March 2026 I found that L’s habitual residence at the start of these proceedings was in Country B. I accepted jurisdiction to hear the care proceedings on the basis of L’s presence in this jurisdiction. There are of course no jurisdictional restrictions on the application for a forced marriage protection order.

[5]This judgment is given immediately following the conclusion of a fact-finding hearing which has taken place over two days. The issue to be determined is a narrow but important one. I need to decide whether the evidence supports a finding that the mother intends or is likely to force L into marriage. Two witnesses have given oral evidence: L herself and her mother. L gave evidence with ground rules in place after a Re W process and a decision taken by me on 24th April 2026.

[6]I met with L just before she gave her evidence. She was articulate, polite and engaging, and it was a pleasure to meet her.

The Background

[7]L is the younger of her parents’ two children. She has an older brother, N, who is aged 17. The family are all Country A nationals and the children grew up in a city in Country A. L’s father, Mr R, was a national of Country A. Her mother, Ms Q, is also a Country A national with Country C (a country in North Africa) heritage. Mr R was a police officer, and Ms Q also worked for the police in Country A in a civilian role.

[8]Tragically, L’s father died in May 2020, not long after being diagnosed with cancer. Both L and her mother have spoken vividly about their loss and it is clear that Mr R’s death hit the family very hard. Sadly, L’s paternal family had not welcomed their son marrying a Muslim woman and they have not kept in touch with their daughter-in-law or grandchildren since he died, compounding their sense of loss.

[9]In December 2020 Ms Q decided to relocate with the children to the UK. The family was familiar with this country as two of Ms Q’s siblings live here and they visited often when Mr R was alive. When they moved the family initially lived in central London, near Ms Q’s sister, and Ms Q found employment. In 2022 they moved to East London.

[10]Unfortunately, things deteriorated for L after the move. She began missing school, and her mother became very worried about the people she was spending time with. She had a number of missing episodes and the school reported that she had shared videos of herself engaging in physical fights with other young people. A referral was made to the local authority, which carried out a child and family assessment. The mother was found to be supportive and to have good relationships with her children, but was struggling to manage L. To her credit, L herself has recognised that her behaviour over this period put her and others at risk of harm.

[11]In April 2024 the mother decided to leave London and return to Country A. The trigger for that decision was a very serious incident when L, then aged just 13, was missing for three days before being found by police in a flat with drug paraphernalia, with two boys and an adult male who was known to the police for child abduction and exploitation risks. The local authority’s records indicates that it was fully supportive of the mother’s decision to relocate, and there is no sense of criticism of the mother or her parenting.

[12]By that time the mother’s parents, who are also Country A nationals, had made their main home in Country B, where two of Ms Q’s other siblings live.

[13]In May of 2024 the family attended Ms Q’s sister’s wedding in Country B. The mother decided to remain and make Country B the family’s permanent home. She explained in evidence that she was still reeling from what had happened to L in London, did not know how best to protect her, and wanted the support of her parents. The family stayed with the children’s grandparents for just under a year before moving into their own apartment.

[14]L found it hard to settle in Country B. For a period of time after the move the mother would return to the UK for a week or two at a time for work. During these periods the children were cared for by their grandmother, but it is clear from L’s evidence that she felt her mother’s absence. The mother says that she was very conscious that L was still suffering grief at her father’s death, and on top of that had experienced additional trauma as a result of her experiences in London. Ms Q decided not to put her back into school straight away, but instead enrolled both children onto an online learning programme established by the Country A government for nationals living abroad.

[15]In the autumn of 2025 the mother got a job in an international school in the city where the family was living. L too was enrolled there as a pupil. She did not however attend consistently, and there are some differences between L and her mother as to why this was. The mother says that L rebelled against rules about piercings and make-up. L says that the work was too difficult, she was partly taught in a language which she did not fully understand, and the teachers were strict and sometimes rude.

[16]On 28th December 2025 the mother arranged for both children to come to London for a holiday and to visit family. This holiday partly took place in the school holiday period in Country B and partly extended into the school term. The mother explained that L was not regularly attending school in any event. The children were accompanied by their uncle, the mother’s brother. The plan was to return on 1st February 2026 and the return flights were booked.

[17]During her time in London L reconnected with friends, including a 16 year old boy called S whom she knew a little bit from when she had previously lived here, and with whom she had been talking, with her mother’s knowledge, for several months. S has been known to the local authority since 2022. The concerns for him are about child criminal exploitation, including some involvement with knife crime and drugs. There has also been an allegation of sexual assault made against him.

[18]L spent the last week of her stay in London staying with S and his family. When the time came for her to return on 1st February she did not go to the airport and instead sent an email to the local authority’s referrals hub which read as follows: “I am contacting you because I am being pressured by my mum into a marriage that I do not want. I am scared and do not feel safe at home. I am worried this could happen soon, and I might be forced to go [Country B] or be made to marry against my will. I want to stay in the UK and continue my life and education safely. I need help and protection. I do not want my family to be told that I contacted you without my permission as I am afraid of what could happen. I would like to speak to a social worker as soon as possible and get advice about safe accommodation, away from the people pressuring me”.

[19]The following day L spoke to her mother on the phone. L wanted to go back to the flat where she had been staying to collect some belongings and her mother told her, she accepts untruthfully, that her uncle would not be there. In fact he was, and when L left the flat he followed her. L telephoned the local authority social worker who met her at a local police station. She spoke to the mother on the phone who insisted that L return to Country B and declined to give her consent to L’s accommodation under Section 20. S’s mother and L’s uncle also attended, and there was something of a confrontation. The police were called, and at 8pm L was taken into police protection and placed in foster care.

[20]Two days later the local authority issued proceedings, and an interim care order was granted on 10th February.

[21]L settled reasonably well in foster care and formed a good relationship with her carer. The local authority attempted, with limited success, to put in place a curfew and to impose some boundaries around her relationship with S. There were occasions when, despite the curfew, L was found outside her placement in the early hours. The mother includes in a witness statement some information she says she has obtained from L’s social media accounts and from speaking to her friends, which suggests that L is at risk of both criminal and sexual exploitation. The mother says she is very worried about L’s safety and that at times when in conversation with her L has said that she is scared and that she wants to return to her mother’s care.

[22]In early April, a few weeks before this hearing, L told her social worker that she would be prepared to return to live with her mother provided that she could do so in Country A and that she did not want to return to Country B. During the hearing a question was put on L’s behalf to her mother about the possibility of the mother moving to the UK to live with L here. The mother says that it is simply not possible for her to return to Country A or the UK. She has a home now in Country B, as well as the bulk of her family support, in particular her parents. Given what has happened in the past and her concerns about L’s current circumstances, she does not think that London is the right place for her.

The Law

[23]The application for a care order requires the court to make findings under Section 31 of the Children Act. In order to establish that the threshold criteria are met under that Section the court must be satisfied that at the relevant date when the local authority initiated proceedings L was suffering, or likely to suffer significant harm, attributable to the care being given to her not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give.

[24]The application for a forced marriage protection order is made under Section 63A of the Family Law Act 1996. There is no threshold requirement in that Section. Sub-section 2 reads as follows: “In deciding whether to exercise its powers under this Section and, if so, in what manner, the court must have regard to all the circumstances including the need to secure the health, safety and wellbeing of the person to be protected”.

[25]While the court has a wide discretion whether or not to make a forced marriage protection order, on this application, just as in any other area of law, the first task for the court is to establish the underlying facts, applying the civil standard of proof. Having done so, the court will go on to determine whether there is a need to protect the person from being forced into a marriage, or from an attempt to force them into marriage; and, if so, it will balance the person’s need for protection with Article 8 rights to respect for private and family life: see Re K

[2020] EWCA Civ 190

[26]The nature of this hearing therefore requires the court to undertake a process of fact finding. When finding facts the burden of proof is on the party making the allegation, and the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities. The court may find only that something happened or it did not happen; the law operates a binary system. Findings must be based on evidence, including inferences that can properly be drawn from the evidence, and not on suspicion or speculation, but the court may take into account the inherent probabilities of an allegation. The court surveys a wide canvas and must take into account all of the evidence and consider each piece of evidence in context.

[27]It is common for lay witnesses to tell lies during the course of an investigation and hearing. A witness may lie for many reasons. The fact that a witness has lied about some matters does not mean that he/she has lied about everything, and the court is required to consider how and when a witness’s lack of credibility should be factored into the equation when determining an issue of fact. In order to do so the court should ask itself the following questions: First, whether the witness has told a deliberate untruth; secondly, whether the lie related to a significant issue; and thirdly, whether there is any other reason that could explain the lie.

[28]The evidence of children is approached in a different way to the evidence of adults. Children will not be subjected to cross-examination in the same way as an adult witness. The court’s aim is to facilitate the child to give their fullest and best account, while allowing any party who seeks to challenge the child’s evidence to test it in a way that is appropriate and takes account of the child’s vulnerabilities. In this case that was achieved by a list of questions drawn up by the advocates and pre-approved by me, and put to L by her own advocate.

The Evidence

[29]The evidence includes witness statements from the local authority social worker, the mother, and L. In her statement the social worker, Miss Hughes, has set out the accounts given by L. There is no issue that her recordings are accurate, and it was unnecessary for her to give oral evidence. The documents also include a witness statement written by L’s maternal grandmother. That document is signed, but does not contain a statement of truth. In those circumstances, and without her being cross-examined, the weight I give is of course more limited than would otherwise be the case. Both the mother and L have provided witness statements and both gave oral evidence.

[30]L says that in 2025, when she was living in Country B, her mother said some things to her that made her believe she would be forced into marriage. She says in particular that in December 2025 the mother told her by text that she had identified someone for her to marry. L says that throughout her time in Country B her education was not prioritised, and that she is afraid if she returns there she will be forced into marriage and not be able to pursue her ambitions. L wants to stay in London and to complete her education.

[31]The mother denies that she has ever contemplated forcing L into marriage, or indeed arranging a marriage for her. She denies that she has threatened to so, or that she has said or done anything which might have suggested to L that she was seriously contemplating a marriage for her. The mother recognises that L did not feel happy in Country B, but she believes that this is mainly because L continues to grieve the loss of her father, as well as suffering the after effects of her experiences in London in 2023 and 2024.

[32]Despite L’s allegations and recent events, L and her mother remain in contact, messaging and also speaking relatively frequently. Their relationship has of course come under strain as a result of what has happened, but it is far from being irrecoverable. Both spoke of their love for each other, and L has made it clear that despite everything that has happened, she misses her mother and would like to be with her again.

Findings

[33]The local authority has identified the findings it seeks which it says should lead the court to conclude that L is likely to be forced into marriage by her mother. The findings sought by the local authority all relate to things that the mother is alleged to have said to L during the course of 2025. The burden is on the local authority to prove these allegations.

[34]The primary evidence is the accounts given by L and her mother. The mother’s evidence is supported by the written statement of L’s grandmother, although, for reasons I have given, I cannot give too much weight to that piece of the evidence.

[35]In considering the allegations it is necessary to look at the surrounding circumstances. There is in fact a considerable degree of agreement between L and her mother as to the background and their lives in Country B, and it is only really on the central allegations relating to marriage where their accounts significantly differ.

[36]In my judgement the followingly, largely accepted, features of the context are relevant. First, it is accepted that there is no history or culture of forced marriage within the maternal family. L and her mother give very similar descriptions of their family background. Ms Q and her siblings grew up in Country A, as children of a [Country A national] father and a [Country C national] mother, whose own marriage, according to all family members, was a love marriage, and indeed, L’s maternal grandmother had four children with her husband before they were married. The mother’s siblings, L’s aunts and uncles, live in Country A, Country B and the UK. Not all are married. Those that are were married at different ages, and the unchallenged evidence is that they all chose their partners for themselves. Most compellingly perhaps, the mother’s own marriage to Mr R, who was a non-Muslim, Country A national, was a love marriage that was neither forced nor arranged; and all the evidence, including L’s, indicates that that relationship was happy and successful.

[37]Similarly, there is no evidence that L or other young people in the family have been required to adhere to cultural practices with which they are uncomfortable, or to comply with conservative behavioural restrictions. L has complained that at times in Country B she had to wear a hijab, but the mother has produced several photos and a video showing L in different settings, including outside the home, in Western clothes and with her head uncovered, and she says that the only time L wore a hijab was to attend a mosque. L herself has told her social worker that she was not forced to go mosque, and did so out of her own choice.

[38]I have struggled to discern any motivation that the mother might have, in the absence of a cultural imperative, for forcing L into a marriage she does not want. A number of questions were put to the mother to suggest that she was financially motivated. I do not find that argument at all convincing. The mother accepted that she has had to be more careful with money since her husband died, but she has his pension which provides some security, and she also has a track history of finding employment and family support. I do not have a lot of evidence about the wider family’s resources, but I note that the mother’s parents and siblings have all held professional jobs, and at a minimum it is clear that there are sufficient funds to support reasonably frequent international travel. It seems unlikely that money was so tight in the family that L’s marriage would be seen as a solution.

[39]L is a young girl who has experienced significant upheaval since the death of her father in 2020. She has had to move country on two occasions, and to get used to a new and different language and culture on each occasion. When she was living in London between the ages of 12 and 13 she was exposed to serious exploitation, and it seems likely that she will have suffered a number of traumatic experiences.

[40]The evidence is that L did not settle well in Country B and was unhappy there. She herself describes the family’s move and her mother’s efforts to arrange education for her as “chaotic”, and the evidence indicates that there is some justification for that view. She found the city she was living in traditional and, in her words, “boring”. She agreed that she had made friends and that she was able to do activities with them, for example bowling, the cinema and sleepovers. However overall it is clear that she felt she had far less freedom than she had in the UK, one example being the need to get around by taxi, which she disliked, rather than being free to travel on her own by public transport.

[41]The evidence of the local authority makes it clear that L feels a strong connection to S, and it is reasonable to draw the conclusion that her relationship with him provides her with a motivation to stay in the UK. The mother goes further and fears that L is under S’s control, and that he is putting pressure on her to remain and to make false allegations. The mother says that she has also learned from a friend that S has an intimate video of L which he has threatened to share. On 18th February 2025 L asked her mother to send money to S’ account. The mother refused to do so, but the maternal grandmother received the same request and did transfer a small amount of money.

[42]It is in that context that I must weigh up the evidence in support of the findings sought. I make it clear before doing so that the local authority is right to take L’s account seriously, and I have no criticism of the social worker or the local authority in general for any of the actions they have taken to date in making these applications.

[43]L’s evidence and the evidence about her views present a mixed picture. She has said consistently to the social worker and the guardian that she does not want to go back to Country B, and that she is fearful of being forced into marriage. However, a few weeks ago she said she would be prepared to be reunited with her mother and family if they could live in Country A, rather than in Country B. The mother’s evidence is that when she has spoken to L, she has at times said she wants to come home and is missing her mother and other members of the family. It seems likely that L is feeling confused and overwhelmed, and it is not surprising if she has said different things at different times.

[44]I am mindful that the mother has been giving evidence in her second language and that her three quite lengthy and detailed witness statements have had to be translated. The local authority and guardian have challenged the mother’s credibility on the basis that some details of her evidence emerged in the witness box and had not been previously included. When this happened it related, in my view, to more peripheral issues, for example the detail of L’s education in Country B, and the mother’s own short-lived relationship there. As these were not core issues it is not surprising that the full details were not set out in the mother’s written witness statements.

[45]The local authority has been critical of the mother for her decisions about L’s education, although it has made clear that it does not seek a threshold finding on this issue. L’s guardian argues that the mother’s evidence on the issue of education is nevertheless relevant to the question of forced marriage because it potentially undermines the mother’s case that she has prioritised L’s education, and she would not want her to give that up in order to marry young. It is necessary therefore to deal with this aspect of the evidence.

[46]It is easy with hindsight to say that it might have been better for L if the mother had enrolled her when she came to Country B in a physical rather than a virtual school. However, having heard the mother’s evidence, I am entirely satisfied that she took the decision she thought was best for L at the time. I was struck by the vivid nature of the mother’s evidence about the events in London in early 2024. This episode clearly had had a significant impact on the mother’s thinking. She was terrified for her daughter, did not know what to do to keep her safe, and acted swiftly, but in an unplanned manner, to remove her from the risk. Since L came to Country B, her evidence and that of her mother suggests that L herself has been quite resistant to formal education. I am satisfied that the mother struggled to engage her with education, but that of itself does not mean that education is not a priority for the mother.

[47]The mother has also accepted that she lied to L on 2nd February 2026 when she told her that her uncle was not at the flat. There is an obvious reason for that lie. L had been missing for several days and had missed her flight back to Country B. The mother was very anxious about her welfare and feared that she would not go back to the flat if she thought her uncle would be there. Many parents might well have done the same and this lie, in my view, has no relevance to the mother’s credibility generally.

[48]Overall, the mother’s evidence struck me as that of a devoted and desperately worried parent. She was able to put herself in L’s shoes and to recognise that it may be quite difficult for L to contemplate returning to Country B after the allegations she has made. I am satisfied however that the mother has the insight and maturity to put aside her understandable frustration at her daughter’s choices, and that her overwhelming reaction if L does return will be one of relief.

[49]On the particular issue of marriage, and what was said or not said, I found the mother’s evidence to be coherent and compelling.

[50]I turn then to the specific evidence on the subject of marriage discussions within the family. Both the mother and L say that the topic of marriage came up first in the summer of 2025 when L’s friend, T, who at the time was 16, got married herself. L says that her mother raised the subject of marriage with her but she, L, thought it was a joke. She told her social worker that after T’s wedding her mother had suggested that she, L, marry their neighbour.

[51]The mother says that L had a conversation with her grandmother in which she expressed some interest in the idea of getting married. She says that L mentioned the neighbour’s son. These were not people that the mother knew, and she did not take L’s comments very seriously. She said that she went with L to T’s wedding, but did not know the family very well and believed that they were from a different culture, she thought [redacted]. She did not know why the decision had been taken that T would marry so young.

[52]L then says that later that year, in December 2025, her mother sent her some texts when she was staying with a friend, saying she had “found someone” for her who was 18 years old. The mother denies that entirely. On her case there was no further discussion about marriage after the summer of 2025.

[53]The texts that L has referred to have not been available for this hearing. L has said that she no longer has the phone to which they were sent because it broke and she threw it away. The suggestion that these texts existed was made, as far as I can tell, for the first time in L’s written witness statement dated a couple of weeks ago. In response the mother immediately filed a statement in which she denied that she had sent texts of this nature to L, said that she would never raise an issue of this nature with her daughter by text, and offered up her phone for examination and analysis. It has not been practical to achieve that, so the proof that the mother offered cannot be interrogated, but I do give some weight to the fact that this offer was the mother’s immediate response. I also find myself troubled by L’s explanation for her inability to produce the texts. These days it is rare for messages to disappear when a phone is lost and broken; they tend to be recoverable without too much difficulty via whichever messaging service it was that sent them.

[54]Both the mother and L say that the mother knew in late 2025 that L was having long conversations on the phone with S, who L originally said was just a friend. It is clear from both accounts that the mother suspected a relationship. L says that her mother was not happy with her having a boyfriend; the mother says she thought L was too young at 14 to be in a relationship, but as it was long distance she accepted it. As I observed to counsel in submissions, I find it difficult to understand why, if in December 2025 the mother’s plan was to force L into a marriage that she would be highly likely to resist, she would tell her about the plan and then allow her to travel to London, under light supervision, knowing she would be free while there to reconnect with S.

[55]Stepping back and reviewing the evidence as a whole, I remind myself that the primary role of the court is not to decide who is telling the truth; it is to determine whether the evidence supports a finding that L is likely to be forced into marriage by her mother. I cannot make that finding on the evidence before the court. The evidence is simply not sufficient to find that the mother has suggested to L that she intends to compel her to marry, or even to arrange a marriage for her. I do not find that it was the mother who raised marriage in the summer of 2025. At its highest the evidence might support a conclusion that there was some conversation in the family in the summer of 2025 around the time of T’s marriage about the concept of marriage in general, which neither the mother nor L took particularly seriously at the time. I was struck by the evidence of both that they thought the other was joking; it seems quite plausible that both of them were.

[56]I make no finding that the mother told L in December 2025 that she had found someone for her to marry. The mother denies this entirely. The evidence as to texts in December 2025 I find to be unreliable for the reasons I have given.

[57]It is not necessary or helpful to speculate in this case as to the reason why these allegations have been made. I will say only that the context I have set out above perhaps provides an ample background, both for L’s refusal to get on the plane, and for the allegations that followed. What I hope can be conveyed to L is that I am satisfied that her feelings of being hurt and let down by her mother over the past couple of years are genuine, and I understand too that she felt unhappy and unsettled in Country B. It is also natural that L should feel worried and anxious about the prospect of returning home after what has happened. I am also satisfied however that this mother is a committed and loving parent who knows she needs to find a way of reconnecting with her daughter and is highly motivated to do so. As I have said, I think it likely that her primary response to L’s return will be not one of anger, but relief.

[58]I make a final observation. It was suggested on behalf of the local authority during submissions that if I were to find that the threshold criteria were not met, the local authority might re-issue proceedings on the basis of an allegation that L was beyond parental control. That was a startling suggestion, and my immediate response was to wonder whether such an application would be an abuse of process. I had not intended to engage directly with the prospect of such an allegation, but, having heard lengthy evidence over two days I have now a full picture of the history, and of the mother and L’s relationship, and this issue in my judgement falls well within the known parameters of the case.

[59]In those circumstances, it is appropriate to make the following brief comments. It seems to me that it is highly unlikely in this case that the evidence would support a finding, were the allegation to be made, that L at the relevant date was beyond parental control. Aside from her refusal to get on the plane the only basis on which that is suggested is that the mother had struggled to engage her with education in Country B. L’s engagement with school has been a longstanding issue since she lived in London in 2024, but there is no other evidence that L’s behaviour while living in Country B was in any way disruptive, or that her mother was struggling to manage her. In fact, the picture that emerges is one of a normal teenage life with friends, activities, and a relationship between L and her mother that had its difficulties, but in which there was (and is) considerable mutual respect. Many parents struggle with issues of school refusal in their children, and it is very rare for that issue in itself to take a case over the Section 31 threshold. In my judgement it would be unjust to L, who at heart is a loving and responsible teenager, to make that finding.

[60]My findings mean that both applications must be dismissed and that the proceedings will come to an end. I had hoped that prior to today there might be some preliminary discussions about a plan in the event that the applications were to be dismissed. The mother of course is now the only person who holds parental responsibility for L, and she has made it clear that she is ready to make arrangements for her return, either to collect her herself, or to arrange for her grandmother to do so. The local authority suggested in submissions that it was doubtful that the mother would give ongoing consent to L’s accommodation in foster care under Section 20, but I am not sure whether the question has actually been asked. This is a loving parent, desperately worried about her daughter. It seems to me it is highly unlikely she would take any steps to endanger her, and that she would want her to remain safely accommodated over the brief period while arrangements are made for her return home. The local authority has ongoing duties to provide support to this family, and now needs to step into that role and engage directly with both the mother and with L. But from this point onwards, that will be the responsibility of the local authority and not of the court.