The Local Authority v The Mother & Ors [2026] EWFC 166 (B)

[2026] EWFC 166 (B)

IN THE FAMILY COURT AT CHESTER & CREWE

IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN ACT 1989

AND IN THE MATTER OF A

BEFORE HER HONOUR JUDGE HESFORD

Between

THE LOCAL AUTHORITYApplicant

THE MOTHERRespondent

THE FATHERRespondent

(BY HIS CHILDREN’S GUARDIAN)

3rd Respondent

_______________________________________________

FINAL WELFARE JUDGMENT

DATED 26 JUNE 2026

_______________________________________________

Daniel Currie for Applicant Local Authority

Kathryn Hughes for First Respondent (instructed by Stephensons)

Jonathan Buchan for Second Respondent (instructed by Farleys)

Megan Gilchrist for Child via his Guardian (instructed by Paul Crowley)

This judgment was handed down in private on 26 June 2026. It consists of 22 pages. The Judge has given permission for judgment (and any of the facts and matters contained in it) to be published on condition that in any report, no person other than the advocates or the solicitors instructing them (and other persons identified by name in the judgment itself) may be identified by name, current address or location [including school or work place]. In particular the anonymity of the children and the adult members of their family must be strictly preserved. All persons, including representatives of the media, must ensure that these conditions are strictly complied with. Failure to do so will be a contempt of court. For the avoidance of doubt, the strict prohibition on publishing the names and current addresses of the parties and the child will continue to apply where that information has been obtained by using the contents of this judgment to discover information already in the public domain.

Date 2026-06-26

[1]INTRODUCTION This is my final judgment in care proceedings concerning A, a very young boy. It should be read in conjunction with the fact-finding judgment reference

[2026] EWFC 122

(B). Link: The Local Authority v The Mother & Ors - Find Case Law - The National Archives

[2]On 28 May 2026 I delivered a fact-finding judgment and made detailed findings against both of the parents. In summary I found that A sustained inflicted non-accidental injuries, namely two fractured ribs and multiple areas of bruising, at the age of a few weeks. I determined that these injuries were caused by The mother, and that The father failed to take appropriate protective action. I further found that both parents failed to seek timely medical attention for A following the infliction of these injuries. In addition, I found that both parents had engaged in persistent and serious dishonesty with professionals, authorities, and family members, including about the true nature of their relationship, falsely claiming to be separated. They only admitted the truth when confronted with evidence. There was ongoing domestic abuse, including physical, verbal, and psychological harm, along with concerns about both parents’ emotional regulation and mental health. These issues contributed to the circumstances in which A, a highly vulnerable infant, suffered significant non-accidental injuries.

[3]The court now determines the welfare issues, A’s welfare being my paramount consideration pursuant to s.1 Children Act 1989. The matter was dealt with via submissions.

[4]This judgment is structured as follows: Section 1: Introduction Section 2: The parties’ positions Section 3 The Legal Framework Section 4 The Local Authority evidence Section 5: The mother’s evidence Section 6: The father’s evidence Section 7: The Guardian’s evidence Section 8: Analysis Section 9: Contact Section 10: Decision

[2]THE PARTIES’ POSITIONS AND SUBMISSIONS

[5]The Local Authority was clear that A should not return to the care of either or both of his parents. They opposed a “Resolutions” assessment and sought for A to remain with his paternal grandparents under a Special Guardianship Order. Contact with the parents should reduce to monthly.

[6]The parents sought for A to be rehabilitated to their joint care. They sought a “Resolutions” style assessment. If unsuccessful the mother sought more extensive contact and a contact order. The father did not seek an order and was happy to rely upon the proposed Special Guardians in relation to contact.

[7]The Guardian aligned with the Local Authority and for contact to be a minimum of monthly but ideally fortnightly.

[3]THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK

[8]In light of the findings set out in my fact-finding judgment, I am satisfied that the threshold criteria pursuant to s.31(2) Children Act 1989 are met. A has suffered significant physical harm at the hands of his mother, and his father failed to take reasonable steps to protect him. The harm attributable to the care given to A, and to that which it would be reasonable to expect a parent to provide, is plainly significant. I therefore proceed to determine what outcome best promotes A’s welfare.

[9]A’s welfare is my paramount consideration (s.1(1) Children Act 1989). The court must undertake a global, holistic and evaluative assessment. This requires consideration of the welfare checklist, identification of all realistic options, a comparative analysis of those options; and a final balancing exercise. The need for a rigorous and evidence-based evaluation of each realistic option is emphasised in Re B (A Child)

[2013] UKSC 33

and Re B-S (Children)

[2013] EWCA Civ 1146

[10]Any order I make engages Article 8 rights. I must therefore ensure that any interference is necessary and proportionate. Removal from parental care is a course of last resort (Re B), but the court must ultimately determine whether there is any less interventionist option capable of meeting A’s needs safely (Re W (A Child)

[2016] EWCA Civ 793

; Re F (A Child)

[2018] EWCA Civ 2761

[11]The parents seek a further assessment in the form of a “Resolutions” or “AAA” (Assessment, Analysis and Achievement) assessment to be undertaken in the community. This model is designed for cases such as the present, where findings of serious harm have been made but are denied by the parents. The approach does not depend upon an admission of responsibility but instead focuses on the development of a robust, externally monitored safety framework, often involving wider family members and professionals, with a view to assessing whether rehabilitation can be achieved safely despite continuing denial. The court recognises that such approaches may, in an appropriate case, provide a structured means of assessing risk and protective capacity where conventional approaches - often dependent upon insight and admission - are limited. The decision of HHJ Baker in Re J (A Child) (Resolutions Model)

[2021] EWFC 58

(a case of uncertain perpetrator) illustrates that, in particular factual circumstances, the absence of an admission does not inevitably preclude safe reunification, provided a sufficiently robust protective framework can be established. Re J, although relied upon by the parents is a first instance decision illustrating the potential operation of such models and is illustrative rather than authoritative.

[12]The governing legal principles in relation to further or expert assessments apply with equal force to a Resolutions or AAA assessment. The court may only direct such an assessment where it is necessary to resolve the proceedings justly (s.13 Children and Families Act 2014). The test is one of necessity, not mere desirability. As the Senior Courts have made clear on numerous occasions, the court must weigh the potential benefits of an assessment against the delay it will cause and the other relevant factors. Further, an assessment should not be ordered where the court already has sufficient evidence to determine the child’s welfare, or where the assessment is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

[13]These considerations are of particular importance in a case concerning a child of A’s age. Section 1(2) Children Act 1989 provides that delay is likely to prejudice the welfare of the child. At one year old, A’s need for permanence and secure attachment is acute. Any assessment must therefore be capable of producing clear and reliable evidence within a timescale consistent with his developmental needs.

[14]When considering the parents’ application for a Resolutions/AAA assessment, I should therefore consider:• Whether such an assessment is necessary to determine A’s welfare;

• Whether it would provide materially new or different evidence beyond that already available;

• Whether it has a realistic prospect of demonstrating that A could be safely rehabilitated to his parents’ care, notwithstanding the findings made and the ongoing denial;

• Whether a safety framework of the kind contemplated can be relied upon in practice to protect a child as vulnerable as A; and

• Whether the delay inherent in such an assessment is justified.

[15]These proceedings are not concerned with punishment. The findings I have made are relevant insofar as they inform the assessment of future risk (Re J (Children)

[2013] UKSC 9

). I must evaluate the extent of any ongoing risk, the parents’ insight (or absence of it), their capacity for change, and their ability to prioritise A’s safety.

[16]Finally, I must adopt the least interventionist order consistent with A’s welfare, but must not hesitate to make the order that is necessary to protect him (Re C and B (Care

[17]It is against that legal framework, and in light of the application for a Resolutions/AAA assessment, that I turn to consider the welfare checklist, the realistic options for A’s care, and the outcome which best secures his safety, stability and lifelong welfare.

[4]THE LOCAL AUTHORITY EVIDENCE

[18]The initial parenting assessment from the Local Authority was positive and consideration was given to rehabilitation in the absence of findings. However the assessment was completed before the full extent of the parents' domestic abuse, relationship difficulties and the mother's mental health concerns became apparent. Following disclosure and analysis of the parents' phone data and prior to the Court's findings in relation to A's injuries. It was clear that this was not a single issue case. Furthermore, the assessment relied significantly upon information provided by the parents themselves. It was clear that important aspects of that information were inaccurate, incomplete or misleading. Throughout these proceedings the parents concealed the true nature of their relationship, minimised domestic abuse concerns and failed to be open about significant difficulties within the family. Accordingly, the Local Authority considered that the evidential foundation of the parenting assessment had been significantly undermined and the weight that could be attached to its positive conclusions was limited.

[19]The Local Authority was opposed to the parents’ application for a Resolution-based assessment on the basis that, while such work could in principle proceed despite denial, it depended upon honesty, transparency and a genuine engagement with risk, which was absent. The mother continued to deny responsibility for A’s injuries and the father, despite asserting acceptance of the Court’s findings, had not demonstrated this in his actions, remaining aligned with her and failed to show protective concern. The Local Authority therefore invited the Court to place limited weight on his professed acceptance. It further identified serious concerns about the parents’ relationship dynamics, including evidence that The mother held a dominant or controlling role and that The father lacked the independence and confidence to challenge her. Given the finding that he failed to protect A, the Local Authority considered this particularly significant, as he would be required to act as the primary protective factor in any future placement. The evidence demonstrated a continuing prioritisation of the relationship over A’s safety. The Local Authority also relied on the sustained pattern of dishonesty, including failure to disclose domestic abuse, relationship difficulties, and mental health concerns despite prolonged professional involvement. It noted that key information only emerged following phone analysis, leading to the conclusion that the parents could not be relied upon to engage openly with professionals in the future. Overall, the Local Authority maintained that the risks in this case were clear, serious, and unmitigated, arising from the proven harm, ongoing denial, lack of insight, entrenched dishonesty, and concerning relationship dynamics, together with the absence of a sufficiently protective family network.

[20]The Local Authority accepted that both parents had demonstrated warmth towards A, had engaged appropriately with professionals, and were able to meet his basic needs in a supervised setting. However, it considered these positive features were outweighed by serious and ongoing concerns. Central to its position were the Court’s findings that the mother caused A’s non-accidental injuries and that The father failed to protect him. The Local Authority contended that neither parent had demonstrated genuine insight into those findings. The mother continued to deny responsibility, while The father, despite professing acceptance, remained aligned with her and had not shown sufficient protective concern.

[21]The Local Authority also relied on a pattern of sustained dishonesty, including the concealment of their relationship difficulties, domestic abuse, and other concerns, with disclosure occurring only when confronted with independent evidence. This, together with evidence of domestic abuse and unhealthy relationship dynamics, leads the Local Authority to conclude that The father lacked the independence and capacity to act protectively. Applying the Cycle of Change model, both parents were assessed as lacking recognition of the issues and therefore unlikely to achieve meaningful change. In those circumstances, the Local Authority considered that the risks to A remained high, could not be mitigated, and would arise whether the parents cared jointly or separately.

[22]The Local Authority had considered the wider family support network but concluded that, although there was a willingness to assist, there were consistent limitations in the ability of family members to provide safe, reliable, and protective care. The arrangements were described as fragmented, informal, and dependent on availability. The Local Authority considered that reliance on multiple individuals providing intermittent care would lack consistency, communication, and effective oversight, and would not provide the stable caregiving environment required for a child of A’s age. There was also limited evidence that the individuals had a sufficient understanding of the safeguarding concerns or the ability to work in partnership with professionals. the paternal grandfather had offered support and accommodation, but the Local Authority remained concerned that he failed to recognise or respond to risks at a time when the parents were living with him and the difficulties in their relationship would likely have been apparent. Further concerns arose from conflict between him and the maternal grandmother, which called into question the practicality and effectiveness of any supervision arrangement involving both of them. The MGM herself had limited involvement and proposed only ad hoc support, which the Local Authority considered insufficient to provide a consistent or protective arrangement.

[23]As to the paternal family, the paternal grandmother had played a more positive role and maintained a relationship with A. However, the Local Authority considered that her ability to act protectively was significantly limited by the parents’ lack of transparency, including them concealing the true nature of their relationship and wider concerns from her. As a result, her support was not regarded as fully informed or reliably protective.

[24]In contrast, the paternal grandparents had been consistently assessed in a positive light. A has lived with them since the outset of proceedings, where he received stable and nurturing care. They had demonstrated a clear commitment to his long-term care and had been assessed as able to provide permanence, stability, and protection.

[25]Overall, the Local Authority concluded that, while the wider family network was willing, it did not offer a safe or sustainable alternative. The paternal grandparents were the only family members assessed as able to meet A’s needs in a consistent, protective, and long-term way.The Local Authority therefore invited the Court to conclude proceedings with a Special Guardianship Order in favour of the current carers.

[26]The Local Authority placed significant weight on the issue of delay. A is described as settled in his current placement, where his needs are being met and secure attachments have formed. Further assessment would prolong uncertainty, place pressure on the placement, and run contrary to his need for stability and timely permanence. The Local Authority therefore opposed the adjournment for further assessment.

[5]THE MOTHER’S EVIDENCE

[27]The mother stated that she does not accept that she inflicted any injury on A. She acknowledged, however, that the Court had made those findings and accepted that they would be treated as facts going forward, including that she would be regarded as posing a risk. She confirmed that she was willing to work on that basis and remained in a relationship with The father, seeking a Resolution-based assessment with the support of their extended family network. She emphasised positive aspects of her parenting and accepted, on reflection, that her mental health was poor at the relevant time and that she failed to seek help. Since the judgment, she had contacted her GP and been referred for therapy, and she stated that she intended to engage fully with this support.

[28]The mother describes her ongoing commitment to positive family time, that she has maintained appropriate emotional presentation, and that she shares a strong bond with A. She also acknowledged the incidents of domestic abuse towards the father, accepted that she was not initially forthcoming about them, and expressed regret. She stated that there have been no further incidents and that both she and The father have begun work in relation to domestic abuse and communication, with a willingness to engage in further interventions.

[29]She relied on the positive findings of the parenting assessment, including emotional warmth, commitment to routines, cooperation, and willingness to learn, while recognising that these must be balanced against the safeguarding concerns. She stated that, if A could not return to her care, she accepted that he should remain in his current placement with his paternal grandparents, expressed gratitude for their care of him, and sought ongoing, regular and preferably increased contact, to include extended family involvement where appropriate.

[6]THE FATHER’S EVIDENCE

[30]The father states that he accepted the Court’s findings that A sustained non-accidental injuries caused by The mother. He acknowledged that the injuries were caused by significant force and accepted that there was no accidental or medical explanation. Although he did not witness the injuries, he accepted that they occurred while A was in the mother’ care and acknowledged his own failure to adequately safeguard A. He described The mother as a caring mother and considered that the pressures following A’s birth contributed to the circumstances, for which he says he did not provide sufficient support.

[31]He reflected that he was aware of difficulties within the relationship but failed to address them or seek help. He accepted that he concealed aspects of their relationship from professionals and did not take reasonable steps to protect A. He attributed this in part to embarrassment and a desire to demonstrate that they could cope as parents without support, which he now accepted was wrong and contributed to the situation. He described focusing on A’s immediate needs following his birth while neglecting issues in the relationship and The mother’ wellbeing. He accepted that he minimised those difficulties and failed to take up offers of support, including assistance from family members, which might have enabled them to address their problems. He expressed regret and remorse for what had happened and acknowledged that he should have sought help. He had chosen to remain in a relationship with The mother and supported a Resolution-based assessment with a view to them caring for A together.

[7]THE GUARDIAN’S EVIDENCE

[32]The Guardian noted that the case had developed from what initially appeared to be a single-issue case about injuries into one involving wider concerns, including domestic abuse between the parents, difficulties in their relationship, concerns about the mother’s mental health, and a pattern of minimisation and dishonesty towards professionals. She acknowledged that both parents had strengths. They demonstrated warmth and affection towards A, understood his needs, and had maintained positive and consistent contact, which A clearly enjoyed. However, these strengths were considered insufficient to mitigate the risks arising from the findings of serious physical harm, the parents’ lack of insight and accountability, and their failure to prioritise A’s safety over their relationship. Both parents acknowledged aspects of domestic abuse and difficulties in their relationship, but the Guardian remained concerned about their minimisation of these issues and their previous dishonesty. The evidence suggested that neither parent had demonstrated sufficient insight, and that The father, in particular, had prioritised his relationship with The mother over A’s safety and demonstrated a pattern of dishonesty in order to protect the mother.

[33]The Guardian further highlighted concerns about the proposed reliance on the wider family to supervise care. Although family members expressed willingness to help, they were previously seemingly oblivious to any of the parents’ difficulties, including when A was living in the maternal grandfather’s home at the time of the injuries. This raised concerns about their ability to act as effective protective supervisors within any safety plan.

[34]Against this background, the Guardian did not support the parents’ application for a Resolution-based assessment. She considered that the risks were clear, serious, and unmitigated, and that there was no confidence the parents would work openly and honestly with professionals or that protective measures would be effective. She also emphasised the impact of delay, noting that A has spent almost all of his life in his current placement and requires permanence.

[35]She concluded that A was thriving in the care of his paternal grandparents, who had met his needs to a high standard and provided a stable and nurturing environment. She therefore recommended that he remain in their care under a Special Guardianship Order, with ongoing contact with his parents, ideally on a fortnightly basis, to maintain their relationship without undermining his stability.

[8]ANALYSIS 8.1. THE RESOLUTION STYLE ASSESSMENT

[36]The parents applied for a further assessment in the form of a Resolutions or AAA assessment to be undertaken within the community. I accept that such models are designed to address cases where serious harm has been found but remains denied, and that in an appropriate case they may provide a structured and externally monitored framework capable of testing whether risk can be safely managed. However, the availability of such a model does not determine this application.

[37]The governing legal framework is clear. By virtue of s.13 Children and Families Act 2014, I may only permit the instruction of such an assessment where it is necessary to assist the court to resolve the proceedings justly. This imposes a high threshold: the court must be satisfied that the assessment is necessary, not merely desirable or potentially helpful. The court must also take into account the impact of delay, the nature of the issues, the probative value of the proposed evidence, and whether the court already has sufficient material to determine the issues.

[38]This application also engages the Article 8 rights of A and his parents to respect for their family life. Refusing the assessment will restrict the parents’ ability to pursue rehabilitation, and thus constitutes an interference with those rights. However, such interference will be lawful and justified if it is necessary and proportionate in pursuit of the child’s welfare, which is the court’s paramount consideration. The question for this court is therefore whether refusing the assessment strikes a fair balance between the parents’ Article 8 rights and A’s right to security, stability and protection from harm. The Existing Evidential Landscape

[39]I begin with the evidential position. The court already possesses a clear and substantial body of evidence. The risks in this case are not speculative or uncertain. They include proven physical harm to A, the mother’s continued denial of responsibility, entrenched dishonesty towards professionals, concerning relationship dynamics, including domestic abuse and additional welfare concerns, including mental health. These risks are established and well-evidenced, rather than emerging or unclear. Further, although the father asserts that he accepts the court’s findings, he has not demonstrated the behavioural change necessary to evidence an ability to protect A. In his statement, he does not expressly accept that the mother was responsible for A’s injuries; rather, he states only that he accepts that “[mother] was the perpetrator of the injuries to A, based on the evidence and how it was presented in court.” In my judgment, that formulation is revealing, his acceptance is qualified and does not reflect a clear and unequivocal recognition of the mother’s responsibility, as demonstrated by his statement and continued alignment.

[40]It reflects not a genuine internalisation of the findings, but a more superficial or forensic acceptance of the outcome of the proceedings. This lack of full and unequivocal acceptance is directly relevant to his capacity to safeguard. It suggests that, in reality, he does not truly accept that the mother was responsible, but instead accepts only that this was the conclusion reached on the evidence as presented. His priority remains the mother.This distinction is critical when evaluating protective capacity [Re H (Care: Risk)] principles implicitly.

[41]The Local Authority’s position, which I accept, is that this is not a case in which the risks require clarification through further expert involvement, but one in which those risks are known and remain unmitigated. That is a powerful factor against a finding of necessity under s.13.

[42]The case of Re J, an illustrative first instance decision, suggests that a Resolution assessment is appropriate “in the right set of circumstances” and I agree with this statement. However the issues in Re J related to a previous child’s injuries and the application was made at the commencement of the new proceedings so there was no delay. Here we are at 52 weeks. The delays were caused not simply by the police deciding to interview the parents shortly prior to the earlier listed hearing, but as a result of the lies and deceit of the parents discovered by the police in their phone logs. Further, as I address herein, this is no longer a single issue case and whilst Resolution assessments are designed for circumstances where there is dishonesty, in this matter the dishonesty was all pervasive, continuing up to trial. Open and honest working with and between the parents, professionals and extended family is necessary and this has not been shown to date. Whether the Assessment Would Provide Materially New Evidence

[43]The parents submit that a Resolutions model could nonetheless produce new evidence by testing whether a robust safety framework could operate despite their denial. I have carefully considered that submission.

[44]The effectiveness of such an assessment depends fundamentally upon honesty, transparency, and constructive engagement. I wholly agree. Those qualities are not present here. The parents have repeatedly misled professionals and withheld critical information, including in relation to their relationship, domestic abuse and the circumstances surrounding A’s injuries. They engaged in a sustained and serious pattern of dishonesty affecting multiple professionals. They were only honest when caught out, even during the hearing itself when for the first time they admitted an ongoing relationship. The father still does not accept that he was deliberately dishonest, despite continuing to lie even after the police disclosure, he “just didn’t see things the way others did.” In spite of everything that has happened, the mother considers that ‘she has and continues to do everything to be the best mum to A.’ Neither shows insight. They attempt to rely on the previous parenting assessment as being positive, despite the fact that it was based upon a sustained pattern of dishonesty and deceit and significantly undermined by their own behaviour.

[45]In those circumstances, I cannot be satisfied that participation in such an assessment would produce reliable or meaningful evidence. There is a real risk that the process would simply replicate the historical difficulties seen in these proceedings, rather than generate a genuinely probative and forward-looking evaluation of risk. Accordingly, I do not consider that the proposed assessment would provide materially new or sufficiently robust evidence capable of advancing the court’s welfare analysis. Prospects of a Different Outcome

[46]I next consider whether the proposed assessment has a realistic prospect of demonstrating that A could be safely rehabilitated.

[47]The parents’ proposal depends heavily upon a complex framework of supervision by extended family members. However, the evidence raises serious concerns about the viability of that network. Key proposed supervisors were previously unaware of significant difficulties within the household, even when those difficulties were ongoing. The relationship between the parents continued at the maternal grandmother’s home and this was not disclosed to social workers in the face of the parents’ repeated statements that their relationship was over. The Local Authority undertook an analysis of the support which could be offered by the extended family and were unconvinced that it would be suitable even if the parents acted with full candour. It was notable to the court that the parents did not suggest the proposed Special Guardians for any support whatsoever in their plan, and the mother’s explanation for this omission (effectively she wants people closer to her) was unconvincing, particularly taking into account that A’s primary attachment is to them.

[48]Further, the Local Authority identifies that the proposed arrangements would substantially replicate a situation that existed at the time A suffered harm, particularly in its reliance upon the maternal grandfather as the primary supervisor. That fact significantly undermines confidence in the protective capacity of the proposed regime. They propose that supervision will be undertaken by the maternal grandfather on his own for the vast majority of the time other than 29 hours a week when it will be undertaken by the paternal grandmother). The remaining time would be supervised by the maternal grandfather alone. It is relevant to note that the parents and A were living with the maternal grandfather for the entire period from A’s birth until his presentation at hospital. That included the mother’s significant mental health deterioration, A screaming all night regularly, and various domestic abuse incidents such as the father calling the mother a ‘bitch’ and telling her to ‘shut the fuck up’, the mother slapping the father in the face while he sat on the bed, and an alcohol-fuelled domestically abusive argument. They did not speak to him before taking A to hospital. The maternal grandfather was, apparently, wholly oblivious to all of these events. The court has considerable scepticism as to his potential as a protective supervisor against that background and bases its decisions on the existing history and evidence. If he is sidelined or unavailable, then the only protection would be the father and he has shown himself incapable of protecting A.

[49]The position of the parents themselves is equally significant. The mother remains in denial. The father has demonstrated a consistent prioritisation of his relationship over A’s welfare, and has not shown the independence or insight required to act as an effective protective parent. They remain a couple, having latterly admitted that their claims to separation were untrue. This was a toxic and unhealthy relationship at the time of A’s injuries.

[50]These are not peripheral difficulties; they go to the core of the risk analysis. In my judgment, they very significantly reduce the realistic prospect that the proposed assessment would lead to a conclusion that A could safely return to parental care. Delay and the Child’s Timescale

[51]The issue of delay is of central importance. A is a very young child whose need for stability, permanence and secure attachment is acute.

[52]The proposed assessment (including screening if required) would take up to 4 months to complete, with further delay for reporting and determination by the court. Any short cut would devalue any assessment. In reality, this would add many months of uncertainty to proceedings that are already significantly extended. The total delay including listing a further hearing would likely extend proceedings beyond 70–75 weeks. This case is already at week 52. The suggestion that the delay would only be 4 weeks is erroneous. The parents could potentially challenge a negative screening assessment and here would also be additional time to instruct, consider and then relist.

[53]A is presently settled in a placement which is meeting his needs well and providing him with stability and security. Delay could prejudice that stability and would postpone the achievement of permanence. It could place the whole placement at risk. When weighed against the speculative and limited benefit of the proposed assessment, the certain harm caused by delay weighs heavily against granting the application. Article 8 and Proportionality

[54]I turn expressly to the Article 8 balancing exercise.

[55]Refusing the assessment constitutes an interference with the parents’ right to respect for family life, as it limits the avenues by which they may seek A’s return to their care. I treat that interference with appropriate seriousness. However, the court must balance that right against A’s own Article 8 rights, which include his right to security, stability, and protection from harm. In doing so, I must consider whether refusing the assessment is a proportionate response to the legitimate aim of safeguarding A’s welfare. At its core, this is not a case where risk is unknown or contingent; it is one where the nature, source and persistence of risk are already clearly established and remain unmitigated

[56]In my judgment, it is. The interference is justified for the following reasons:• The court already has sufficient evidence to determine A’s welfare;

• The proposed assessment is not necessary and would not materially advance the case;

• There is no realistic prospect that it would lead to a different outcome;

• It would introduce significant delay, which is directly contrary to A’s welfare;

• A has a current placement meeting his needs, offering a clear route to permanence.

[57]In those circumstances, the refusal of the application represents a proportionate and necessary measure. It strikes a fair balance between the parents’ Article 8 rights and A’s right to timely permanence, safety and stability. The child’s welfare, as required by s.1 Children Act 1989, properly prevails. Conclusion

[58]In conclusion, I am not satisfied that the proposed Resolutions or AAA assessment is necessary to resolve these proceedings justly within the meaning of s.13 Children and Families Act 2014. The court already has a sufficient evidential basis. The proposed assessment would not provide materially useful evidence, has no realistic prospect of altering the outcome, and would introduce delay that is harmful to A. Even if the assessment were positive, there is no realistic prospect that the parents could demonstrate sufficient change within A’s timescale. Having also conducted the required Article 8 proportionality analysis, I am satisfied that refusing the application is a justified and proportionate interference with the parents’ rights.

[59]Accordingly, the parents’ application for a further assessment is refused. 8.2. THE FINDINGS AND FUTURE RISK

The Mother

[60]The mother is the perpetrator of serious physical harm. I have considered her current position and in my judgment she still insufficiently accepts the findings. She lacks meaningful insight into the harm caused and the risk of repetition remains high/significant and unmanaged. That risk cannot presently be managed in her care. Indeed it is possible that she accepts this (“in light of the findings, this will be difficult to achieve”) and in reality she is not seeking an immediate return but further assessment.

The Father

[61]The father was not the perpetrator but failed to protect A and I have carefully assessed whether he could now act as a safe primary or protective carer. The critical issues are his acceptance of the findings, his appreciation of the mother’s risk and his willingness and ability to prioritise A over his relationship with the mother. He has continued to support the mother and it is clear that whilst accepting the decision of the court, he still finds it very difficult to accept that the mother was responsible. I am not satisfied that he has demonstrated sufficient protective capacity nor that he could safely care for A, whether alone or in combination with safeguards. Together

[62]This was a toxic and abusive relationship and although therapy is planned, this will take time, full acceptance of responsibility and complete honesty to make progress. The parents’ lack of honesty was persistent and serious. The likely timescale is not suitable for A in any event. It is of note that when identifying potential sources of support, the parents did not include the proposed Special Guardians within their support network. This is notable given the central role they currently play in caring for A. This omission raises further concerns regarding the parents’ openness, insight, and ability to appropriately recognise and utilise protective resources available to them.

The Kinship Placement

[63]I turn to the proposed placement with the paternal grandfather and his wife, who seek a Special Guardianship Order. I have had regard to the Full Kinship Assessment dated 4 November 2025 and the Special Guardianship Support Plans. A has lived with his paternal grandparents since he was only a few weeks old. He has settled well in their care and developed secure primary attachments to them as his consistent caregivers. They have provided a stable, nurturing, and predictable environment, ensuring that his health and developmental needs are met. They are capable of meeting A’s physical and emotional needs throughout childhood. Assessment confirms their ability to care for A and their understanding of the findings and associated risks.

[64]I am satisfied that the proposed carers have demonstrated a clear and consistent ability to prioritise A’s welfare, accept the findings of the court, recognise the risks posed by both parents and are able to maintain appropriate protective boundaries. Importantly, they have shown that they can safeguard A from the mother and will not defer to the father where this would compromise A’s safety. They understand the need for structured and safe contact. However the level of family time and the ongoing uncertainty of proceedings have begun to place increasing pressure on the carers. Whilst they have continued to meet A’s needs to a high standard, this pressure, if prolonged, risks impacting on the stability of the placement. Any disruption to this placement would likely be detrimental to A, given his young age and reliance on consistent attachment figures.

[65]I accept the professional evidence that this placement is stable, secure, sustainable and meets A’s needs now and in the future. 8.3. CAPABILITY FOR CHANGE WITHIN TIMESCALES

[66]A is a young child who requires permanence without delay.

[67]I am not satisfied that either parent could make the necessary changes within A’s timescale. There is simply no evidence to support such a contention. The kinship carers, by contrast, are able to meet A’s needs now and into the future. 8.4. THE WELFARE CHECKLIST

[68]Wishes and feelings: A is too young, at just one year of age, to be able to articulate his wishes and feelings. However, his behaviour, attachments and responses to his primary caregivers provide important indicators. At this developmental stage, a child’s primary “wish” is to have consistent, responsive and safe caregiving from a small number of familiar adults. It can reasonably be inferred that A would wish to be cared for by his parents if they were able to do so safely. In the absence of that, he would wish to maintain a relationship with them, provided that such contact is safe and promotes his welfare. Above all, he would “wish” for carers who meet his physical and emotional needs, provide comfort, and keep him safe from harm.

[69]Physical, emotional and educational needs: A is wholly dependent on his carers to meet all of his physical and emotional needs. Emotionally, secure attachment is critical at this age. He requires warm, responsive, and predictable caregiving to promote development and emotional regulation. Exposure to unsafe or inconsistent care risks long-term developmental harm. His needs at this stage centre on early stimulation: play, language exposure, and interaction. Stable caregivers are essential to support his developmental milestones.

[70]The likely effect on him of any change in his circumstances: A has already experienced disruption and harm at a very early stage in his life. Any further change must therefore be approached with care. He was placed in a safe and stable placement within the wider family following his release from hospital. If he was to move placement again, this would have to be undertaken sensitively and carefully, if safe and appropriate, which would likely mitigate the impact of change. However, multiple or delayed placements would be harmful, given his need for early permanence. The court must prioritise a timely, stable outcome that minimises uncertainty.Permanent placement with relatives represents a significant but manageable transition, preserving A’s family identity.

[71]His age, sex, background and any characteristics which the court considers relevant: A is a very young child at a crucial stage of attachment formation. This heightens the importance of stability and the risks associated with delay or inconsistent care. His family background and identity are relevant; maintaining his cultural and familial connections, where safe, will support his long-term sense of identity. Any placement should seek, where possible, to reflect and preserve those aspects of his background.

[72]Any harm which he has suffered or is at risk of suffering: A has sustained non-accidental injury at the hands of his mother, which constitutes serious physical harm. In addition, he has suffered emotional harm arising from the failure of his father to protect him from that abuse. He remains at ongoing risk of further harm if returned to the care of either parent at this time. The harm is significant not only for its physical impact but also for its implications regarding the safety and reliability of his caregivers. The court must treat this as a case involving both proven harm and a continuing risk of future harm. The mother still denies causing the injuries despite accepting the findings of the court.

[73]How capable each of his parents is of meeting his needs: Neither parent is currently able to provide safe and adequate care. The mother has inflicted harm upon A (and also his father), which raises grave concerns about her ability to provide safe parenting and manage stress or frustration. The father has failed to protect A, demonstrating an inability or unwillingness to prioritise A’s safety. Protective capacity is a fundamental requirement of parenting, particularly for a child of A’s vulnerability. At present, neither parent can meet A’s physical or emotional needs safely without significant change, which has not yet been evidenced. This could not be evidenced in a timescale suitable for A. I find that only the proposed special guardians are currently able to meet A’s need for consistent, safe, and emotionally attuned care.

[74]The range of powers available to the court: The court has a range of options, including no order, delaying the outcome for further assessment of the parents, making a care order or Special Guardianship Order with a plan for placement within the family, or, if that was not viable, alternative permanent care arrangements. Given A’s age and need for permanence, the court must carefully consider whether a family placement could be achieved safely and without undue delay. If not, other long-term options, including adoption, may fall to be considered. Any order should prioritise A’s safety, stability, and the achievement of a permanent home within timescales commensurate with his developmental needs. 8.5. PROPORTIONALITY AND OPTIONS

[75]I have considered all realistic options: Return to either parent

[76]For the reasons given, this is not safe or viable. Care order with foster care

[77]This would provide safety but would represent a greater interference with family life than necessary given the availability of a suitable family placement. Special Guardianship

Order

[78]This option will provide A with permanence within the family, secures his safety through the carers’ protective capacity and represents a less interventionist and more proportionate outcome than long-term foster care or adoption. I am satisfied that any risks can be appropriately managed within this placement, supported by clear contact arrangements and ongoing support services as required.

[79]In comparing these options, I am satisfied that only the Special Guardianship Order both meets A’s need for safety and does so in a way that is the order which is necessary and proportionate. Return to parents cannot safely meet his needs. Foster care, whilst safe, would be a more interventionist interference with family life without corresponding benefit. Having regard to A’s age, vulnerability, and need for permanence, his welfare is best promoted by maintaining stability within his current placement, where his needs are being consistently and safely met. Any disruption to his established attachments, or delay in securing permanence, would be contrary to his emotional wellbeing and long-term development.

[80]Standing back and conducting the required holistic evaluation, I am satisfied that the risks posed by the parents remain unmitigated and cannot be safely managed within A’s timescale. Balanced against this, the proposed Special Guardians offer immediate, stable and secure care. The balance therefore falls decisively in favour of a Special Guardianship Order

[9]CONTACT

[81]I turn to the issue of contact between A and the parents. This requires careful consideration in light of the findings I have made and the need to ensure that any ongoing relationship is safe, beneficial, and consistent with A’s welfare. There was disagreement as to both frequency and the need for an order. The mother was the only party seeking an order, on the basis of her fear that contact may cease if there was no order.

[82]Under s.14C Children Act 1989, a Special Guardian has:• Parental responsibility

• The ability to exercise PR to the exclusion of others (except another special guardian) This means:

• The starting assumption is that the Special Guardian can manage contact without a court order

• The court should be cautious about imposing orders that restrict or control the Special Guardian’s decision-making.

[83]I remind myself that contact between a child and their parents is generally in the child’s interests, as part of maintaining their identity and family relationships, however, contact is not a right of the parent but rather the right of the child, and must be consistent with the child’s welfare. The court must ensure that any contact arrangements are safe and properly managed, particularly where there are findings of serious harm. The findings in this matter necessitate a cautious and structured approach. In particular, there is a clear risk of emotional harm and potential physical risk if contact is not appropriately regulated, and there is a risk of undermining the placement if the parents do not accept the authority of the proposed Special Guardians. There is also potential for loyalty conflict for A as he grows older.

[84]The proposed Special Guardians have demonstrated that they understand the nature and seriousness of the findings, are able to exercise appropriate authority and boundaries and are committed to supporting A’s identity, including safe relationships with his parents where appropriate. I am satisfied that they can take responsibility for day-to-day decision-making about contact in the future, provided there is a clear framework. They have promoted the agreed contact throughout and offered additional contact.

[85]Given that the mother was the perpetrator of serious physical harm and currently lacks sufficient insight, father failed to protect A and does not yet demonstrate sufficient protective capacity to justify unsupervised contact, plus his level of insight remains limited, I am satisfied that direct contact must be supervised and must take place in a controlled setting. This is essential to ensure A’s safety and emotional wellbeing and to manage any risks associated with parental care. The frequency should also be carefully limited, both to manage risk and to avoid destabilising A’s primary placement. As the parents are presenting as a couple it is likely that they would seek to have contact together although this may change. I also consider it important that the local authority provides appropriate support services to assist the proposed special guardians in managing contact if they seek this support and that the parents are encouraged to engage constructively and appropriately. This is reflected in the Special Guardianship Support Plan.

[86]The mother initially wished for contact to continue at its present high level. This was wholly unrealistic. Alternatively she sought contact at a minimum of fortnightly.

[87]The plan of the Local authority was for contact between A and his parents to reduce over the next few months and then to take place on a monthly basis, and this was agreeable to the proposed Special Guardians as a minimum due to their own family commitments. They considered that they may be able to do it more frequently and this was something that would likely change in the future once things were settled. The Guardiansupported more frequent contact if possible, on a fortnightly basis and hoped that this could be achieved with the support of other family members who could supervise the sessions. The Guardian noted that contact is a very positive experience for A and there would be a negative impact upon him of such a significant decrease to monthly. She considered that fortnightly contact balanced maintaining A’s relationship with his parents with potential disruption or undermining of his placement.

[88]Supervision will be provided by the proposed Special Guardians or A’s grandmother who has been assessed as a suitable designated contact supervisor although ultimately the proposed Special Guardians and the family may make their own arrangements in due course and they have the additional support of further extended family and friends. The Local Authority will continue to work with the family under Child In Need provision for the near future.

[89]A key feature of a Special Guardianship Order is that it confers enhanced parental responsibility on the proposed Special Guardians, enabling them to make day-to-day decisions. I am satisfied that it is both appropriate and necessary that they should have primary control over the detailed arrangements for contact and they have the authority to reduce, suspend, or vary the planned contact if required to safeguard A’s welfare. This flexibility is essential to ensure that A’s needs remain central and that contact evolves in line with his age, understanding, and wellbeing.

[90]The proposed contact framework ensures that any relationship with the parents is maintained only insofar as it is consistent with A’s safety and welfare. The carers have been clear that they are presently only agreeable to a minimum of monthly contact going forwards. Further contact supervised by other family members will be a matter that will have to be agreed with them, with support from the Local Authority. The stability of A’s placement must take priority over the parental desire for more contact. The longer term frequency of contact will be a matter for the proposed Special Guardians but contact will now reduce in line with the plan and then take place on a monthly basis as a minimum. It shall remain supervised for the foreseeable future. The Local Authority should offer guidance and assistance concerning any future transition to unsupervised contact, but any progression beyond supervised contact should be contingent upon both the mother and father demonstrating clear acceptance of the findings, demonstrating genuine insight into their actions, and evidence of sustained behavioural change. In the case of the father, he also should evidence the ability to prioritise A’s welfare over his relationship with the mother. The proposed Special Guardians (and any relevant professionals) should consider such progression to be safe and if in doubt, the Local Authority should assist with a professional assessment confirming that increased contact would be safe.

[91]I bear in mind the guidance that the court should not ordinarily impose a contact order in the context of a Special Guardianship Order where the carers can be trusted to promote appropriate contact. I also bear in mind the “no order” principle, the court should not make an order unless it would be better for the child than making no order at all. The absence of a contact order reflects the court’s confidence that the proposed Special Guardians will continue to promote appropriate contact as they have to date. There is no evidence that the proposed Special Guardians will not adhere to the suggested arrangements. Neither the Local Authority nor the Guardian consider that an order for contact is necessary or appropriate and it is notable that the father agrees with this. The mother’s misplaced fears are not a sufficient reason for making an order. Making no order will allow adjustmentover time as A grows and responsiveness to his changing needs, and avoid disputes where change is required.

DECISION

[92]Drawing all matters together:• A has suffered serious and significant harm;

• The mother presents an ongoing risk;

• The father lacks sufficient protective capacity;

• This is not the right set of circumstances for a Resolutions assessment; and

• A cannot safely return to parental care within a realistic timeframe

[93]The proposed kinship carers:• Offer a safe, stable, and permanent home;

• Are able to protect A from identified risks; and

• Can meet A’s lifelong needs.

[94]I am satisfied that the making of Special Guardianship Orders in their favour is:• Necessary;

• In A’s best interests; and

• A proportionate response to the risks identified.

[95]In relation to contact,• Ongoing contact with the parents is in principle beneficial for A;

• However, it must be carefully controlled and structured in light of the findings;

[96]The arrangements I have set strike a balance between:• Maintaining relationships; and

• Ensuring A’s safety, stability, and emotional wellbeing; and

• Provide a suitable framework at present and for the foreseeable future. They are approved as long term plans.

[97]I therefore approve the contact arrangements as outlined above, subject to the overarching principle that A’s welfare remains paramount at all times. Order• . I make Special Guardianship Orders in favour of [………….].

• . I approve the Special Guardianship Support Plan subject to the observations herein.

• . I do not make a contact order. The order should recite that the expectation (rather than an enforceable minimum) is that contact should take place at a frequency of at least monthly, with any changes to be wholly at the discretion of the Special Guardians.

• . I am satisfied that nothing less than this order will meet A’s welfare needs and that no more interventionist order is required. Her Honour Judge Hesford 26 June 2026

Order

Future Harm)

[2001] 1 FLR 611

). As emphasised in Re B (A Child), the court’s task is to determine the outcome that is right for the child.