A Local Authority v AB & Ors [2026] EWFC 162 (B)

[2026] EWFC 162 (B)

Case No BS25C50180

Venue IN THE BRISTOL FAMILY COURT

Date 29 May 2026

Before

HHJ Stephanie Cope

Between

A local authorityClaimant

ABDefendant

CDDefendant

EFDefendant

G, H and JDefendant

(through their children’s guardian)Defendant

A local authority

G, H and J

(through their children’s guardian)

Hearing Hearing dates: 26, 27, 28 and 29 May 2026

JUDGMENT

This judgment was given in private. The judge gives permission 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 this 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.

Introduction

[1]I am concerned with public law proceedings relating to three children G, H and J. All were under five years of age at the time of the hearing. This hearing has been listed as a final hearing to determine allegations pursued by the local authority and to make orders in accordance with the children’s welfare. The mother is the first respondent, the father of J is the second respondent and the father of G the third respondent. H’s father has not taken part in these proceedings. The children are the fourth to sixth respondents. The children’s guardian is Ms Amlacher.

[2]For the purpose of this hearing, the local authority is represented by Ms Phillimore, the mother by Ms Fincham, the second respondent by Ms Harris, the third respondent by Mr Cooper and the children by Ms Pope. I am grateful to them all for their assistance. Background

[3]The mother is a vulnerable woman.

[4]Following G’s birth, G was made subject to an interim care order and placed in a parent and child foster placement. Ultimately, G transitioned into the community in M’s care, and a 12 month supervision order was made.

[5]Following H’s birth, Children’s Social Care received further referrals. In May 2024 the family was referred to Early Help. In September 2024 a strategy discussion took place, and a section 47 investigation, although ultimately it was felt that the mother’s engagement with professionals meant that a further escalation was not required.

[6]On 18 June 2025 the children’s aunt contacted First Response due to her concerns about the mother’s mental health, and the mother reporting that she was struggling to cope. The mother was experiencing suicidal thoughts and wished to place the children in care. The aunt called an ambulance, and the mother attended hospital with the children. Initially the older two children were placed with the aunt. The mother and J moved to a parent and child foster placement.

[7]The aunt noted that G had a vaginal discharge and asserts she informed social worker Ms S on the morning of the 19 June 2025. Proceedings were issued on 20 June 2025. Ms S does not recall the conversation. However, she was of the view that the aunt’s approach and steps she took regarding concerns for G’s health were appropriate and that she fully met all the children’s needs. G was referred to the paediatric assessment unit due to concerns about her vaginal discharge and was seen on 1 August 2025. She was tested for chlamydia and gonorrhea which were not detected but repeat swabs were tested on 15 August and confirmed Trichomonas Vaginalis (TV) which is a significant finding as it is a sexually transmitted infection

[8]The local authority applied for an urgent hearing on 19 August 2025 and all three children were placed in the original mother and child foster placement until 24 October 2025 when they moved to a culturally suitable placement in Croydon. On 17 September 2025 I gave permission to Mr Greenhouse, former consultant in sexual health to provide an expert report. The children have since moved back to the care of the aunt. The local authority’s concerns

[9]The local authority seeks findings in accordance with amended threshold document. In its submissions, not all of the findings in the threshold document are sought. In so far as final orders are concerned, I am invited to make a special guardianship order in favour of the aunt. On the first day of the hearing, I was told that the mother did not oppose this as a way forward. Accordingly, it was possible to reduce the length of the hearing. The legal framework General principles

[10]The burden of proof lies with the local authority. The inherent probability or improbability of an event remains a matter to be taken into account when weighing probabilities and deciding whether, on balance, the event occurred (Re B (Care Proceedings: Standard of Proof)

[2008] UKHL 35

at paragraph 15 (Re B)). There is no room for a finding by the court that something might have happened. The court may decide that it did or that it did not happen (Re B at paragraph 2). The standard of proof does not shift according to the seriousness of the allegation, nor the inherent probability or improbability of an event occurring (see Baroness Hale in Re B).

[11]The standard of proof is the balance of probabilities (Re B).

[12]Findings of fact must be based on evidence including inferences which can properly be drawn from the evidence (Re A (A Child) (Fact-finding hearing: Speculation)

[2011] EWCA Civ 12

(Re A (Speculation)).

[13]Evidence comes in many forms. Evidence cannot be assessed and evaluated in separate compartments. The court must have regard to the relevance of each piece of evidence and exercise an overview of the totality of the evidence in order to come to the conclusion whether the local authority has met the standard (Re T

[2004] EWCA Civ 558

[2004], Re A (Children)

[2018] EWCA Civ 1718

, Re J (A Child)

[2015] EWCA Civ 222

[14]Findings of fact must not be based on hypothesis. The court must avoid speculation, particularly in situations where there is a gap in the evidence (Re A (Speculation)). The parents have to prove nothing, and the court must be careful to ensure that it does not reverse the burden of proof (Lancashire v R

[2013] EWHC 3064 (Fam)

).Having heard all the evidence it is open to the court to conclude that the evidence leaves it unsure whether it is more probable than not that the event occurred and accordingly, that party who has the burden of proving that event has occurred has failed to discharge the burden (The Popi M, Rhesa Shipping Co SA v Edmunds, Rhesa Shipping Co SA v Fenton Insurance Co Ltd

[1985] 1 WLR 948

[15]Hearsay evidence is admissible in family proceedings of this nature - see The Children (Admissibility of Hearsay Evidence) Order 1993. Family Proceedings fall within the definition of ‘civil proceedings’ for the purposes of the Civil Evidence Act 1995. By virtue of section 4 of the 1995 Act, there is a checklist of factors that the court should consider when ‘estimating the weight to be given to hearsay evidence’. Case law has emphasised that where hearsay evidence is admitted and relied on it must be scrutinised by the court with considerable care.

[16]The evidence of the parents and any other carers is of the utmost importance. It is essential that the court forms a clear assessment of their credibility and reliability. They must have the fullest opportunity to take part in the hearing and the court is likely to place considerable weight on the evidence and the impression it forms of them (see Re W and another (Non-accidental injury) [2003] FCR 346).

[17]As observed by Mr Justice Mostyn in Lancashire County Council v R

[2013] EWHC 3064 (Fam)

(citing Onassis and Calogeropoulos v Vergottis

[1968] 2 Lloyd's Rep 403

, per Lord Pearce and A County Council v M and F

[2011] EWHC 1804 (Fam)

[2012] 2 FLR 939

the assessment of credibility generally involves wider problems than mere demeanour. Contemporaneous documents are of the utmost importance.

[18]Assessment of behaviour/demeanour is essentially a subjective matter. The Equal Treatment Bench Book cautions judges about relying on demeanour. Any consideration of demeanour may not be reliable given the courtroom is not a normal setting, a point recognised by

Lady Justice Macur in Re M (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 1147:

‘Any judge appraising witnesses in the emotionally charged atmosphere of a contested family dispute should warn themselves to guard against an assessment solely by virtue of their behaviour in the witness box and to expressly indicate that they have done so.’

[19]Mr Justice MacDonald in Cumbria County Council v R (Special Guardianship Order of Interim Care Order)

[2019] EWHC 2782 (Fam)

set out a reminder for the need for caution in respect of witness demeanour as being indicative of credibility. Additional findings

[20]The court is not bound by the cases put forward by the parties but may adopt an alternative solution of its own Re S (A Child)

[2015] UKSC 20

. Caution is required and the court must ensure that any additional or different findings made are securely founded in the evidence: and that the fairness of the fact-finding process is not compromised (Re G and B (Fact-finding Hearing)

[2009] EWCA Civ 10

). The importance of legal concepts

[21]In Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd

[2013] UKSC 34

Lord Sumption noted that the family courts ‘do not occupy a desert island in which general legal concepts are suspended or mean something different’. Domestic abuse

[22]The definition of domestic abuse in PD 12J FPR 2010 was updated in October 2021 following the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 and includes controlling and coercive behaviour as well as economic abuse.

[23]PD12J was also amended to adopt the definition of victim as provided in section 3(2) of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, namely that children are victims of domestic abuse, if they see, hear or experience the effects of the abuse and is related to either the victim of the abuse or the perpetrator of the abuse. Sexual abuse

[24]In R v Bailey

[1924] 2 KB 300

(Bailey) the court warned against the ‘totalising approach’ whereby multiple weak allegations are amalgamated into an apparently persuasive whole. The Court of Appeal underscored the need for punctilious exactness when faced with a mass of unsatisfactory accusations.

[25]It is important for the court to hear proper evidence before making a finding of sexual abuse in the face of a complete and consistent denial by the alleged perpetrator Re D (Sexual Abuse Allegations: Evidence of Adult Victim)

[2002] 1 FLR 723

, FD.

[26]An express denial is no less an account than is a positive account of abuse (Leeds City Council v YX & ZX (Assessment of Sexual Abuse)

[2008] 2 FLR 869

[143]), Mr Justice Holman.

[27]AS v TH (False Allegations of Abuse)

[2016] EWHC 532

Fam Mr Justice Macdonald gave guidance as to how to approach allegations of sexual abuse. The same case provides a comprehensive overview of the relevant guidance for professionals talking to children whom they suspect have suffered abuse. Lies

[28]In considering the issue of any lies told by a witness, the court must take into account the fact that a person lying about A does not inexorably lead to the conclusion that they were also lying about B, C and D. There are many reasons why people may lie about a particular matter; for example, out of shame, humiliation, misplaced loyalty, panic, fear, distress, confusion and emotional pressure (R v Lucas

[1981] QB 720

) applied in family proceedings in Re H-C (Children)

[2016] EWCA Civ 136

)).

[29]If the court determines that the Lucas direction is called for, or is invited to proceed on that basis, submissions should be made to identify(i) the deliberate lie(s) relied upon;

(ii) the significant issue to which it/they relate(s); and

(iii) on what basis it can be determined that the only explanation for the lie(s) is guilt (Re A, B, C (Children)

[2021] EWCA Civ 451

, Lady Justice Macur).

[30]The determination of whether the threshold criteria are fulfilled involves considering the position at the time that protective measures were taken. By contrast, welfare issues must be based on the totality of information available to the court and, unlike threshold issues, it is necessary to conduct a present-day evaluation of what is best for the children.

[31]In terms of making any court orders, I must follow the approach set out in Section 1 Children Act 1989. I bear firmly in mind that the children’s welfare is my paramount concern (section 1(1) Children Act 1989). I remind myself of the provisions of the welfare checklist at section 1(3) and also what is known as the no delay principle set out at section 1(2) and importantly in this case the no order principle set out in section 1(5). Evidence and impression of the witnesses

[32]I have had the benefit of reading the court bundle. Additional material was provided during the hearing. I have also listened to the 999 call, the return call to the mother and watched the bodycam footage of the attendance by the police at the mother’s home.

[33]Over the course of the hearing, I have heard oral evidence from Mr Greenhouse. He was a careful witness who has plainly given the case careful thought. I had no concerns about his evidence and found him to be extremely helpful to the court.

[34]The mother found giving evidence a challenging experience. On several occasions she left court. Fortunately, she did reengage and it was possible to conclude her evidence. She was at times a difficult witness to follow. She would deny the contents of her own evidence such as emails. This was also the case where she appears to have been quoted by others such as in the police documents. This was particularly confusing as sometimes her denials supported what she had alleged.

[35]The second respondent was given a section 98 warning by Miss Harris before he gave his evidence. He was not a particularly forthcoming witness. In my view he sought to distance himself from matters of importance. General observations

[36]My remit is if am satisfied it is appropriate to do so to make findings which satisfy the section 31 threshold in addition to those which might inform my subsequent welfare evaluation. TV

[37]The mother tested positive for TV in August 2021. In her oral evidence she said she did not have any symptoms but if she had slept with somebody she would get herself tested. She said this was a feature of her diagnosis. She said she was given medication and it was treated. From her medical records, it can be seen that she did have symptoms. It seems that she was not honest in her oral evidence.

[38]On 5 September 2022 G was seen by the GP. She was noted to have thrush and was prescribed clotrimazole. Notably, this was before the second respondent and the mother started their relationship.

[39]In September 2023 the mother says she told the children’s aunt that G had vaginal discharge. She says she took G to the GP. There is no record of her attendance. I am not satisfied that she did despite her assertion to the contrary. The following month the mother says the second respondent infected her with TV (there is no evidence of him ever having tested positive for TV). Mr Greenhouse’s evidence was that simply because he had not tested positive for TV was unlikely to be determinative. TV can clear itself and this is particularly so for males.

[40]In October 2023 the mother says she contracted TV from the second respondent. She could not recall how she found out that she had tested positive. Again, she was given a prescription. She was asked about the text message she had sent to the second respondent when she referred to a burning sensation. She accepted she had said this. Her explanation was that she was referring to having thrush.

[41]Mr Greenhouse is of the view that G probably acquired TV after June 2024.

[42]In August 2024 the second respondent says that the mother told him that he had infected her with a sexually transmitted infection.

[43]In about September 2024, the aunt says the mother told her that G was again suffering from vaginal discharge. There is no medical record of this being the case. I am satisfied that the mother did not seek medical attention for G. Even if she thought it was thrush she ought to have done so.

[44]The second respondent undertook tests on 9 September and October 2024. Both were negative. He had a third test on 13 November 2024 which he says was negative. The mother said she was tested having discovered that the father had cheated on her. Once more she was given medication. She said on one occasion she was given the wrong medication by her GP. She said the second respondent sent a message to the aunt, confirming that he had brought the infection into her household. The mother does not have a copy of the message. Again, she said she had no symptoms. She was not honest in this respect as her notes suggest otherwise.

[45]In May 2025 the second respondent says G had vaginal discharge. He says he raised with it with the mother and she said she had taken G to the GP. The mother says she saw the discharge first and raised it with the second respondent. She cannot recall if she took G to the GP. I find that she did not and ought to have done so.

[46]Mr Greenhouse is of the opinion that G acquired TV at some unspecified time before 19 June 2025 and probably within the previous year.

[47]The aunt raised the issue of G’s vaginal discharge on 15 July 2025. TV was confirmed on 13 August 2025.

[48]The mother was tested again in October 2025 after the children had been removed from her care. By this time she knew that the second respondent had been sleeping with a number of other women. She tested positive but says she had no symptoms.

[49]The mother told me that she had a meticulous hygiene routine. She said G would sometimes get in the bath with her as she had no boundaries. This happened on three or four occasions; she could not recall the dates. The mother was adamant that sex toys were not accessible to the children.

[50]The mother said there were times during her pregnancy when she spent a lot of time in hospital. She was not therefore always looking after the children. Looking back, she worries that this may have been when her daughter became infected. She accepts that she does not know whether the second respondent has infected her daughter and she also accepts that she had not seen anything that raised her suspicions. As for others who were looking after her children when she was in and out of hospital, she said they were all hygienic people about whom she had no concerns. She felt confident they would have ensured that the children used their own flannels and towels but accepted there may have been times when this was not so. She accepted that when her mental health was poor her standards slipped.

[51]The mother said that at no time when she had tested positive for the infection had she ever been given any advice to ensure that the children were not infected.

[52]The second respondent accepts that there was quite a good hygiene regime in the house. He said the children had their own towels but he had seen G use her mother’s towel a few times but could not say when this was. He would help to bathe the children but he did not have a shower or share bath water with them. The mother did this at times but he could not say when.

[53]I was surprised to hear that the second respondent did not appear to have any concerns about having unprotected sex despite the mother having had TV at times during their relationship. One might think that he would have wanted to protect himself from being infected and perhaps also the other women he accepts he was having sexual intercourse with at the time. He was absolutely adamant that he has done nothing to G which could have caused her to be infected with TV.

[54]Mr Greenhouse has prepared various reports. He lists the most likely ways of transmission in order of probability:• sexual assault involving a transfer of genital secretions;

• sexual assault using an object freshly covered in genital secretions;

• accidental infection by child finding sex toy or similar implement freshly covered in genital secretions;

• accidental infection via moist towel; and

• accidental infection via shared bath water.

[55]He rules out the possibility of transmission from mother to baby during birth but notes that given that the mother repeatedly acquired TV and there is no obvious evidence of sexual assault, accidental transmission may have greater prominence in these proceedings.

[56]In his oral evidence Mr Greenhouse confirmed the above hierarchy in terms of transmission but accepted that there was no evidence of any sexual assault. Accordingly, infection through a moist towel/flannel or shared bath water were probably more likely in this case unless there was some other explanation. The only caveat related to a sentence in the mother’s witness statement where she expressed concern as to how G might have become infected. However, Mr Greenhouse confirmed that there is no information in respect of dates or indeed anything specifically alleged.

[57]Mr Greenhouse was asked about the period when the second respondent was looking after the children just before they moved to the care of the aunt. He was not assisted in this respect on the basis that symptoms would not simply start on the first day of an infection. Importantly, he had not seen any evidence of an assault.

[58]I have given careful thought to all the evidence, I am not satisfied that there has been any sexual abuse and I am not asked to find such. More likely, there have been poor methods of hygiene in the home. I am not satisfied that G had access to any sex toys which would have caused her to become infected. However, even absent a finding of sexual abuse, it is troubling that a child has become infected. As to who transmitted the infection, I need not recite the evidence of Mr Greenhouse in respect of the second respondent carrying the infection and it not being apparent from testing. However, the mother has tested positive for TV on numerous occasions. This included the period before she was in an intimate relationship with the second respondent. In my view on the balance of probabilities it was the mother who carried the infection at the relevant time and the infection came from her. However, I also find that both parents may have used or allowed G to use a towel/flannel or whatever it was that infected G.

[59]In addition, I am satisfied that it was distressing for G to have been infected by TV. She referred to herself as being dirty and unclean. She ought not to have experienced such an infection which I am satisfied this caused her pain and distress. Failure to seek medical advice

[60]In some respects this is linked to G being diagnosed with TV as the mother says she took G to the GP when there is no evidence of this being the case. In addition, G suffered from breathing difficulties on several occasions. Certainly, there was one occasion when the mother failed to go to hospital. The mother also accepted that there were times when she was not well enough to take G to medical appointments. Domestic abuse

[61]As for domestic abuse, the evidence of both parents was at times hard to follow. The mother has not given a consistent account to the police which is apparent from their disclosure. However, it would not do justice to the case for me simply to conclude that both parents have lied about the incident in late 2025.

[62]Before I address that incident, contrary to what the mother told the police, she was adamant that the second respondent did not control her. She said he was manipulative. She said he would play mind games with her. One minute he was nice and the next minute they were arguing. When she was asked about the statement dated given to the police she said it was not accurate and it was not read back to her. I adjourned to enable the statement to be read to the mother. When the mother returned to give her evidence she said there were matters in the statement that she did not accept. I am afraid I cannot accept her evidence in this respect. Whilst I have not heard from the police officer, it makes no sense for somebody to have made these matters up and included them in the statement unless they were said. However, the rest of the statement she said was accurate.

[63]As to other domestically abusive behaviour on the part of the second respondent, the mother said that when she was in hospital he was looking after the children together with relatives. She said she received constant messages from him telling her to get home. She said he did not spend much time at all at the hospital contrary to what he has said in his witness statement. Her evidence was extremely hard to follow in respect of what was happening at this time and I make no finding. However, generally, there is some evidence of both parties using derogatory and offensive language towards each other although I acknowledge that in respect of the second respondent the evidence I was taken to came about at a time when the local authority changed its care plan to the children being put in foster care when no doubt tensions were running high.

[64]The mother says that there was a significant incident in late 2025 between her and the second respondent. She became quite agitated when her version of events was challenged by Ms Harris. The mother says that the second respondent put his hands round her neck and was attempting to strangle her and he also slammed her head to the floor on several occasions. She says this happened after she had seen a message on his telephone from another woman who he was due to meet that evening. In her oral evidence she said the relationship is over and she has not spoken to him since the end of February 2026. She accepts however that they had sex in early March 2026. The mother also accepted that she had invited him to go shopping about a week after this incident. She said their relationship was very up-and-down.

[65]In her oral evidence, the mother accepted that she was very angry when she had seen the message on the father’s telephone. She said she approached him and pushed him and then he pushed her. She said this happened in the hallway and she picked up a large item and threw it at him. She said she threatened to stab and kill him and it was then that he attempted to strangle her and slammed her head to the floor. The large item and the threat to stab him are not in her statement to the police although the large item can be seen in the hallway on the bodycam footage and she told the police she threw it at him. She told me she could not breathe and subsequently had a headache for two weeks (later two days). It was put to her that she made no reference to being in pain when the police attended. She said she was angry and my interpretation of her evidence was that she was so distressed that her focus was on getting the second respondent arrested and she was not really thinking about herself. She denied having made up the story to assist her with a move from her existing property. I accept her evidence in that respect.

[66]The mother was asked about the photographs attached to her statement. Her evidence was confusing in respect of the love bite. She said there were obviously marks on her neck which were from his nails. She accepted she had made reference to a love bite to the police but said it was not a big one. She said the nail markings were in the back of her hair. It was put to her that the marks were not considered to be fresh when she went to hospital some time later when she was drunk. She maintained that the father had strangled her. She said when she spoke to him about the incident he said that it was her word against his and subsequently the police dropped the case.

[67]The second respondent denies any such incident. He says he has not ever seen any text message from a woman saying that she would see him that night. He thinks that the mother deleted it. He said he was in the shower when the mother confronted him. He dried himself and she was shouting. His reaction was to get out of the house. He got changed and the mother handed him his telephone. He went to his car. He said the mother followed him outside she threw something at the car and he drove off. He did not recall any pushing or a large item being thrown at him. He did not recall the mother threatening to stab him and said there was no strangling or slamming of her head on the floor. Interestingly, he did not provide any of this information to the police and simply gave a no comment interview. In his oral evidence, he did accept that the relationship could be toxic at times. He said they fell out on 17 June 2025 and he did not see her again until 25 June 2025 but cannot remember what they were arguing about. He said he does not argue in front of the children. When questioned by Ms Pope he accepted that the text that had been sent by the woman was now his girlfriend. He does not know why the mother would have reported what she has to the police. He can only think that she did so to stop them from going out that night and indeed he was arrested.

[68]In my view, the broad evidence supports an account of both parties being physically assaulted that day. I am further assisted by the second respondent’s previous relationships appearing to have involved domestic abuse. The mother’s account to the police was compelling in the main. At the start of the bodycam footage she refers to the large item and says that she threw it at him. Further, she was quick to deny certain matters when she was taken through the DASH assessment. When she was asked by the police if she had sustained any bruising to her neck she also said that this was not so and the mark on her neck was likely to have been from a love bite although her evidence before me changed. Taking all matters into account, I am more than satisfied on the balance of probabilities that there was a significant domestic abuse incident as the mother asserts. She pushed him first, threw a large item at the second respondent and threatened to stab him. The second respondent responded by physically assaulting her. However, I am not satisfied that the evidence is such that I can find that there was strangulation or that the mother’s head was slammed to the floor. Mental health difficulties

[69]The mother says that she had a breakdown in mid 2025 but maintained in her oral evidence that this did not impact on the children. This was contrary to her response to threshold and my understanding of her oral evidence was that she did accept that she was not always able to look after the children. She initially denied that lots of people had to look after the children but my impression from her evidence was that she was trying to convey that those looking after the children were trusted friends and members of her family. She was critical of the local authority for not having provided her with the necessary support. She said she had been asking for this for a long period of time. I also understood her evidence to be that she had not become dysregulated in front of the children. I do not accept this has always been the case. Conclusion on threshold

[70]It is apparent from the admissions and the findings that I have made that at the relevant date, namely 19 June 2025 for the older children and 20 June 2025 for J, G, H and J had suffered and were likely to suffer significant harm, and the harm or likelihood of harm was attributable to the care given to them or likely to be given to them, not being what it would be reasonable to expect the parents to give (section 31(2)(a) and (b)(i) Children Act 1989). Welfare

[71]In considering the appropriate orders for the children, I start by addressing the welfare checklist.

[72]The children are all too young to really express their wishes and feelings although G and H have said they would like to live with their mother but are happy with their aunt. They are settled living with her and enjoy seeing their mother. G enjoys seeing her father. The mother and J’s father have not been consistent with their attendance.

[73]The children need all of their physical, emotional and educational needs to be met by their carer. G is doing well at nursery where she has made friends. She enjoys being the big sister. It may be that she has autistic traits which will need to be kept under review. She has a negative view of herself and she needs to be supported to think otherwise. H is well settled with the aunt and is described as a well-liked little child. J is thriving and meeting all of their milestones. J is a relaxed and happy baby.

[74]All three children have endured much change in their short lives. They have been used to living with their mother, aunt, foster carers and again with their aunt (since January 2026).

[75]The harm they have suffered is addressed as a result of my findings and in my view there remains a future risk of harm which would be significant. The children need decisions to be made without further delay. G has been the subject of earlier proceedings.

[76]Sadly, none of the parents is able to care for the children. The mother demonstrates warmth and affection but her dysregulation (her mental health is a significant concern) and inconsistent engagement mean that she cannot provide the children with good enough care. She is not currently able to provide the children with safe and consistent parenting.

[77]The third respondent is not able to care for G.

[78]The second respondent is not able to care for J. His domestically abusive relationships remain a real concern and his attitude to the impact of this on children lacks insight.

[79]Happily, there is a positive assessment of the aunt who has provided the children with exceptional care. She is well-equipped to caring for the children. She has worked incredibly well with the local authority. She has a real understanding of the children’s needs and ensured they are well integrated into her home and community.

[80]I am satisfied that an order is required for the welfare of all three children. There is no dispute that the children should remain living with the aunt I am satisfied that this should be under a special guardianship order. In this respect there is a support plan. I am sure the parents are extremely grateful to the aunt as caring for three children in addition to her own responsibilities is a huge undertaking. Had she not wished to care for the children, the case is likely to have had a very different outcome.

[81]I know that the mother seeks for the children to be returned to her care in due course. It is to her credit that she realises that this cannot happen now. It is also to her credit that she is now accepting of the local authority’s concerns. I do hope that she will undertake the work that is required in respect of her mental health and that she demonstrates a consistent ability to work with professionals. She also needs to understand the importance of emotional safety and consistency for the children which in my view includes understanding the harmful effects of domestic abuse.

[82]Finally, I support the orders sought by the third respondent in respect of a declaration of parentage and being granted parental responsibility. There is evidence which confirms he is G’s father and he has shown a commitment to G.

[83]As for contact, I support the recommendations set out in the guardian’s final analysis although ultimately this will be a matter for the aunt. However, at present contact will be supervised for the mother and the second respondent. It will be monthly for the mother, G’s father and the second respondent and J. There will be a review for all parents in six months’ time.

[84]That is my judgment. Her Honour Judge Cope 29 May 2026