Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council v The Mother & Ors [2026] EWFC 174 (B)

[2026] EWFC 174 (B)Case No SE25C50195
IN THE FAMILY COURT AT SHEFFIELD
Date 25 th June 2026
Sheffield Designated Family Court
48 West Bar,
SHEFFIELD
S3 8PH
Before
H.H. Judge Marson
Between
ROTHERHAM METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCILApplicantTHE MOTHERRespondentsTHE FATHERRespondentTHE CHILDRespondent
Mr D. Dever (instructed by Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council) for ApplicantMs S. Hine (instructed by Howells Solicitors) for First Respondent MotherThe Second Respondent father represented himself at his request.Mr S. Pallo (instructed by Oxley & Coward) for Third Respondent ChildHearing Hearing dates: 1 – 5 and 25 June 2026
Approved JudgmentThis judgment was handed down by email on the 25 June 2026 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National ArchivesThis judgment was given in private. The court permits publication of this judgment on condition that (irrespective of what is contained in the judgment) in any published version of this judgment the anonymity of the child and members of their family must be strictly preserved. All persons, including the parents, their legal representatives, legal bloggers and representatives of the media, must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with.Failure to do so may be a contempt of court.H.H. JUDGE MARSONThe original version of this judgment included the true names of the child, parents, other friends and family members and all professionals involved with the family, and specific dates were identified. This published version has been altered to preserve the privacy and anonymity of the family concerned.
[1]The court is concerned with the welfare of one child, a girl called Betty born in December 2022 who is now 3 years old. Betty is represented at this hearing by counsel, Mr Pallo who takes his instructions from the children’s guardian, Ms Lucy Bishawu. The mother stated in her oral evidence that her preference is for [the child] to be called Betty and in this judgment I will respect her preference.[2]Betty’s parents are [the mother, ‘M’] and [the father, ‘F’]. The Mother is represented by Ms Hine, and any references in this judgment to ‘the mother’ refer to [her].[3]The Father is entitled to free, state-funded legal representation and for the majority of these proceedings he chose to utilise it, but since the 15 April 2026 he has chosen to represent himself. At the point of this hearing when he was due to cross-examine the mother, the court was assisted by the services of a QLR who is Mr John Taiwo.[4]The local authority in this case is Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council and it is represented by Mr Dever. At this final hearing it recommends Betty should continue to live with her maternal grandmother, [MGM] and her partner, [MGP] under a special guardianship order (SGO).[5]The parents are in an ongoing relationship and ideally they seek the immediate return of Betty to their care. They both agree, if the court is unable to return Betty immediately, they seek further assessment within these proceedings of their ability to care safely for their daughter and the father has made an application for an independent social work assessment (ISW) which the mother supports. If the court does not endorse that outcome, they agree Betty should continue to live with the MGM and MGP but under a child arrangements order and not a special guardianship order.[6]The children’s guardian supports the local authority’s recommendations. Ms Bishawu is in support of Betty continuing to live with MGM and MGP under the legal framework of a special guardianship order, and having listened in court to the oral evidence her views remain unchanged.[7]The local authority and children’s guardian recommend Betty should spend time with her mother, to be supervised by her maternal grandmother or MGP, at a minimum frequency of once a fortnight for 2 hours. It recommends Betty’s contact with her father should reduce and take place once every 6-8 weeks and must also be supervised, and this may need to be at a contact centre in the longer term as MGM and MGP are unwilling to supervise it and the local authority which is currently supervising it, will no longer be involved when these proceedings conclude.[8]The mother opposes this reduction in the time she spends with Betty, and if she is not to return immediately to her care she would like to spend as much time as possible with her. In her oral evidence, Betty’s allocated social worker, Ms Boyle said she had no objection to the mother’s contact continuing at the existing frequency of weekly if this is a level which the proposed special guardians could promote. Ms Boyle also had no objections to additional contact taking place by way of video calls if MGM and MGP thought it would be helpful to meet Betty’s needs.[9]The father has applied for parental responsibility for Betty, and this is an order which is supported by the mother and not opposed by the local authority or children’s guardian. He has also made the application for an ISW assessment and he seeks an assessment of the changes he asserts both he and the mother have made during the course of these proceedings. ‘F’ objects to any reduction in his level of contact with Betty and would like it to continue at its existing frequency, preferably supervised by his own mother who supervises his contact with his older son, Andrew.[10]The issues this court needs to determine therefore include the following; i. Is Betty to return to live with her parents or to stay where she is? ii. If Betty stays where she is with MGM and MGP, under what order should she live there? iii. Does the court need to direct further assessment of the parents by an ISW before it is able to make those decisions? iv. How much time should Betty spend with her father if she is living with MGM and MGP? v. Should the father be granted parental responsibility for Betty? THE LAW[11]The law which I have applied to the facts of this case in order to determine those issues is as follows: it is the local authority which brings this application and for that reason, the burden of proving it lies with the local authority. The standard to which it has to prove it is the usual civil standard namely the balance of probabilities. That is the standard I have applied and the basis on which I have resolved any disputed factual matters and reached my conclusions.[12]The local authority is not seeking any public law order and for this reason there is no necessity for it to satisfy the statutory threshold for intervention contained in section 31 of the Children Act 1989. However, I have reminded myself of the court’s obligation to consider Practice Direction 12J in cases which involve domestic abuse and harm when making a decision about where a child should live or about contact between a child and a parent and for this reason, I do consider it appropriate to resolve the outstanding matters in dispute in the schedule of facts submitted to the court to satisfy the section 31 statutory criteria.[13]The making of a special guardianship order may be made by the court pursuant to section 14A of the Children Act 1989. No party has required MGM or MGP to make a formal application for a special guardianship order and it has not been disputed that the court may exercise the power to make the order pursuant to section 14A (6)(b) of the Act. It is agreed the court has the necessary assessment report, health checks, DBS checks and the references which are required to do so.[14]In deciding what order to make, if any, I must have as my paramount consideration Betty’s welfare pursuant to section 1 of the Children Act 1989. In determining where Betty’s welfare interests lie, I must take into account the welfare checklist contained in section 1(3) of the Act. I need to be satisfied that making any order is better than making no order, and have regard to the important principle that any delay in reaching a decision is likely to prejudice Betty’s welfare. I may also have regard to the wide range of orders which are available to the court to make.[15]An application for parental responsibility by an unmarried father is made pursuant to section 4 of the Children Act 1989. In determining this application the court takes into account the degree of commitment the father has shown towards the child; the degree of attachment between him and the child; and the reasons why he is applying for the order. These three points are not exhaustive and the court must take into account all of the relevant circumstances whilst applying the paramountcy principle in respect of the child’s welfare in section 1 of the Act. One relevant circumstance in this case is that the application is supported by the mother and the parents could, if they choose, enter into a parental responsibility agreement for the father to acquire it.[16]When determining the necessity of directing any further assessment of any parent, the court applies section 13 of the Children and Families Act 2014; “The Court may give permission as mentioned in sub-sections (1), (3) or (5) only if the Court is of the opinion that the expert evidence is necessary to assist the Court to resolve the proceedings justly” – s13(6). When deciding whether to give permission the Court is to have regard in particular to those matters set out in full in subsection (7). I must also have regard to the test of ‘necessity’ which has been defined by the Court of Appeal in Re H-L (Expert Evidence: Test for Permission)[2013] 2 FLR 1434 as a word which should be given its ordinary meaning, “lying somewhere between ‘indispensable’ on the one hand and ‘useful’, ‘reasonable’ or ‘desirable’ on the other hand, having the connotation of the imperative, what is demanded rather than what is merely optional or reasonable or desirable”. I also apply the guidance given by the former President, Munby P. in the case of Re S (A Child)[2014] EWHC B44 (fam) , and in the judgment of Peter Jackson LJ in the case of S-L (Children: Adjournment)[2019] EWCA Civ 1571:[17]In Re S, Munby P. gave guidance on the test of necessity which must be satisfied before proceedings may be extended, and guidance as to evaluating the capacity of parents to change:a. Is there some solid evidence-based reason to believe the parent is committed to making the necessary change?b. Is there some solid evidence-based reason to believe the parent will be able to maintain commitment?c. Is there some sold evidence-based reason to believe that the parent will be able to make the necessary changes within the child’s timetable? In paragraph 18 of his judgment he also cites the case of Re J (Residential Assessment: Rights of Audience)[2009] EWCA Civ 1210 para 10, were Wall LJ, as he then was, said:
“I think it is important to remember when one is looking either at the independent assessments by social workers or at applications under section 38(6) of the Act that one needs to be child focussed. It is not a question of the mother’s right to have further assessment, it is: would the assessment assist the judge in reaching a conclusion or the right conclusion in relation to the child in question?”
[18]In the case of S-L Jackson LJ gives guidance on the “trade-off between the need for information and the presumptive prejudice to the child of delay enshrined in section 1(2) of the Children Act 1989. Judges in the family court are well used to finding where the balance lies in the particular case before them and are acutely aware that for babies and young children the passage of weeks and months is a matter of real significance.” “Adjourning a decision should never be seen as pressing the pause button: it is a positive purposeful choice that requires a proper weighing up of the advantages and disadvantages and a lively awareness that the passage of time has consequences”.[19]In this case, there is an admission by both parents that they have told lies during these proceedings and within the previous proceedings which related to Betty. When determining the relevance of those lies I take into account the guidance in the case of R v Lucas [1981] QB 720: It is common for witnesses in these cases to tell lies in the course of the investigation and the hearing. The court must be careful to bear in mind that a witness may lie for many reasons, such as shame, misplaced loyalty, panic, fear and distress, and the fact that a witness has lied about some matters does not mean that he or she has lied about everything.[20]In respect of the interpretation of the hair strand drug test results I have considered the case of Re H (A Child: Hair Strand Testing) [2018] 1 FLR 762 and the guidance of Mr Justice Cobb (as he then was) in the case of Re D (Children: Interim Care[21]I have also had regard to the well-known passage in the judgment of Hedley J in Re L (Care: Threshold Criteria) [2007] 1 FLR 2050, at paragraph 50 that:
“society must be willing to tolerate very diverse standards of parenting, including the eccentric, the barely adequate and the inconsistent….. It is not the provenance of the state to spare children all the consequences of defective parenting. In any event, it simply could not be done.”
[22]I have had the benefit of reading the written reports, SGO assessment and statements filed by the parties, together with the results of the father’s hair strand testing and the disclosure received from the police which includes body worn camera footage of the index incident in June 2025. I have seen photographs of the parents and Betty together, and read personal references submitted to the court by friends of the father. I have heard oral evidence over five days from one of the Police officers who attended the index incident PC Bugnol; from the allocated social worker, MsTeala Boyle, from [EX], a friend of the father; from the mother, the father and from the children’s guardian.[23]It should also be noted that where I do not refer to any particular piece of written evidence, statement or report in this judgment, that evidence has nevertheless now been read and considered except where I state otherwise. It should also be noted that where reported speech is given in italics in this judgment it is taken from the written and/or oral evidence and in the latter case it is taken from my own contemporary notes of the oral evidence. This means whilst it is materially and factually accurate it is possible some quotations may not be verbatim due to the speed at which the note was written during the live evidence. Many issues were raised during the course of the oral evidence, and in accordance with guidance from the Court of Appeal I have addressed only those issues which I consider are relevant, proportionate and necessary to determine the disputed applications before the court.[24]In my analysis of the evidence and in any narrative part of this judgment I may address matters upon which the parties do not agree, and I may give my findings on those disputed matters as they arise. The Factual Background[25]These are the second set of public law proceedings in respect of Betty in the last two years. Social care’s involvement with this family began before Betty’s birth and it has been continuously involved to a greater or lesser degree ever since.[26]The first set of proceedings arose following a referral to social care from midwifery services in June 2022 when the mother was pregnant with Betty and the identity of the father became known. This caused concern to social care because ‘F’ had recently been released from prison for assaulting a child. ‘F’ has a conviction for assaulting his son, Andrew (d.o.b. 00.00.2015) in 2018. Thereafter, ‘F’ was sentenced to a period of 16 months imprisonment in January 2021. Following on from that assault it was self-evident he posed a risk of physical and emotional harm to children.[27]In addition to the father’s conviction, social care also held concerns about the alleged domestic abuse perpetrated by the father which had been reported by the father’s former partner, and a police call out made by ‘M’ reporting an assault upon her by the father in September 2022. The local authority was very concerned about the risks the father posed to the mother’s safety as well as to Betty’s. It led to the PLO process being initiated within which ‘M’ showed, ostensibly, positive progress, especially around her decision to end her relationship with ‘F’. In turn, this led to the local authority ending its involvement under the PLO process although Betty remained the subject of a child protection plan until November 2023.[28]On the 16 December 2023 the local authority received information that ‘F’ had attended the family home and been abusive to the mother, breaking down the door and assaulting her, or going to assault her, and in doing so Betty had been caught in the crossfire and was hit. Further alleged incidents of violence followed on the 20 December 2023 and the 30 March 2024. During the latter incident it is agreed the mother sustained physical injuries and Betty was present.[29]Such was the level of escalating concern that in August 2024 the local authority applied for an interim care order with an interim care plan for Betty to remain in the care of her mother. It considered that: “with a tight safety plan, increased professional visits, support from the family network and some recent honesty from ‘M’ we can promote a level of safety that outweighs the harm of separation at that time”.[30]During the previous proceedings the parents were assessed by the local authority and the mother undertook a psychological assessment by a Consultant Clinical Psychologist, Dr M. to inform care planning and an assessment of the risk the parents posed to Betty’s welfare.[31]On the 3 February 2025 the first set of proceedings concluded with a clear belief and understanding by all professionals working with the family, and the court, that the parents’ relationship had ended. This court delivered an extempore judgment on that date, made findings in respect of the section 31 statutory threshold which included two incidents of violence perpetrated by the father on the 20 December 2023 and 30 March 2024, approved Betty continuing in the care of the mother, and made a supervision order for 6 months. There is an approved transcript of the judgment this court delivered on the 3 February 2025 in the case lines bundle for this final hearing, and it contains a clear warning to the parents to abide by the agreed safety plan because one consequence of breaching it was likely to be further proceedings and Betty’s removal from the care of her mother.[32]The index incident arose in June 2025 when the father’s younger brother, Charlie who is a child, called the Police and made an allegation he had been assaulted by the father at the home of Betty’s paternal grandfather, [PGF] where Charlie was living. The mother and Betty had been present in the home at the time although ‘M’ has always maintained she did not directly witness the incident having been in a different room with Betty when it happened. The Police arrested ‘F’ and charged him with non-fatal strangulation, but when the matter was listed for trial in 2026 Charlie chose not to give evidence and the matter was dropped by the Crown Prosecution Service.[33]This incident led the local authority to issue these second set of proceedings in respect of Betty on the [x] June 2025 and the case came before this court on an urgent basis the same day. The local authority sought Betty’s immediate removal from the care of her mother which she opposed. The mother accepted she had been at the home of the paternal grandfather with Betty when the father attended and an incident occurred, but she denied she had otherwise been in contact with ‘F’.[34]At that hearing the local authority made an oral application for forensic analysis of the data held on the mother’s mobile phone, and the court invited the mother to permit the social worker to look through any phone messages instead. The mother agreed, and it was at this point in the hearing the mother admitted she had been in contact with ‘F’ in breach of the safety plan. Her admissions included the father staying over at her property and that he had been at her home as recently as the 31 May 2025. Following the mother’s admissions the court made an interim care order and approved Betty’s removal into foster care. Betty remained in foster care until August 2025 when, following a positive assessment of MGM and MGP, she was placed in their care where she remains.[35]As part of the evidence gathering process in these second set of proceedings the court directed statements from the parents to be filed. In the mother’s initial statement to the court submitted in June 2025, which contains a statement of truth, she makes further allegations of abuse against ‘F’, including him entering her flat through the window without her permission, putting his hands on her, making her feel scared, denying they live together but accepting he had slept overnight at her home, and going out on family trips but denying they had resumed their relationship, and permitting him to see and spend time with Betty. She stated whenever she confronted ‘F’ about messages she had seen on his phone showing he used prostitutes and other girls, he “would get angry and nasty. I knew I was being manipulated but I could not get out of the situation”.[36]In the father’s initial position statement submitted to the court on his instructions dated 9 July 2025, he accepts he and the mother had resumed a relationship with each other after the 3 February 2025 in breach of the safety plan, but denied any form of violent behaviour which placed Betty at risk of harm. He denies assaulting his younger brother, Charlie and asserts he did not know the mother or Betty were at the property when he called round. The father agrees there was an altercation between himself and Charlie but places responsibility for this upon Charlie who ‘squared up to him, told him to leave, and put his hand on the father’s shoulder in an aggressive manner’.[37]In the same position statement the father denies living with the mother and Betty stating clearly; “They are not and have not been living together” but accepts he did stay overnight at her home ‘some nights but this was not on a routine basis’. Elsewhere in this statement the father states his relationship with the mother is over, they are separated and they have no intention of resuming their relationship. He accepts he is not in a position to care for Betty due to residing in a bail hostel and being of no fixed abode. He states, if the local authority’s final care plan were to be one of adoption, he would like to be assessed to care for her. He accepted he continues to use cannabis and although there had been a brief period of a few weeks when he had reduced his cannabis use, he continued to use it to help him to relieve his stress. He denied using other substances.[38]At the initial IRH listed on the 14 November 2025 neither parent opposed Betty’s long term placement with MGM and MGP although ‘F’ wished to object to this being under the auspices of an SGO and suggested a child arrangements order was more proportionate instead. The IRH was listed before this court, and it was noted the local authority had failed to obtain any disclosure from the Police in respect of the incident with Charlie in June 2025 and did not appear to have given any, or any adequate consideration to Practice Direction 12J or what the risks were which the grandparents were being expected to manage when Betty sees her parents. It led to an adjournment of the IRH for the police disclosure to be obtained and further directions were given to advance the case.[39]At that hearing the father informed the court he had not used drugs ‘for months’ B43 and was willing to engage in hair strand drug tests to demonstrate this. On the 11 December 2025 the father submitted a sample of hair for drug testing, the results of which are in the court bundle dated 22 December 2025. The results are positive for the use of cannabis on what is likely to have been a mostly daily basis from around October to early December 2025 (the sample period) and the use of cocaine on what is likely to have been at least a few days from around early September to early November 2025, followed by abstinence during the approximate month prior to sample collection which would coincide with the approximate time frame between the court hearing on the 14 November and the sample collection date of the 11 December. Further testing of the additional substances identified in the hair sample revealed the use of ketamine on around one or two days during the period around early September to early November 2025 followed by abstinence during the approximate month prior to sample collection. The local authority accepts the use of ketamine by the father is probably attributable to the cocaine he was using being ‘cut’ with it and he may not have been aware he was using ketamine.[40]At the adjourned IRH on the 13 January 2026, the mother continued not to oppose Betty’s placement with her own mother and MGP, not least because the parents confirmed they were in an ongoing relationship. The father denied the allegation of assault against Charlie which had been pleaded in the amended schedule of facts to satisfy the section 31 statutory threshold in response to the Police disclosure obtained. He did not accept the findings of violence made against him by the court in the previous proceedings, and he asserted he had made positive changes to necessitate further assessment of his ability to care for Betty by an ISW. If the allegation of assault made by Charlie was to be pursued by the local authority, he indicated he would seek for Charlie to attend court and be cross examined.[41]The father subsequently made an application for Charlie to give evidence and at a further hearing on the 3 March 2026, the court gave directions for an ISW, Rosie Cole to carry out a ‘Re W’ assessment of Charlie with the consent of Charlie and [the paternal grandfather]. This assessment was completed and the ‘Re W’ application determined by the court on the 15 April 2026 when it was refused for the reasons given in the extempore judgment on that date. In summary form, those reasons included Charlie’s strong opposition to giving evidence against his brother because he didn’t wish to feel responsible for Betty not being in his care or for any decision this court may make; the likely impact of doing so would have on Charlie’s emotional wellbeing and welfare; and Charlie’s wish to focus on his exams.[42]At the hearing on the 24 April this final hearing was listed and it takes place in week 52 of these proceedings.

THE PARENTS’ CASE

[43]The parents essentially present a joint case. Both parents gave an affectionate and loving account of their relationship with Betty, sharing happy memories and photographs of them together as a family where Betty is clearly enjoying herself. The father described outdoor activities he usually did with Betty, how he had taught her to swim and to cook, and his concern she had regressed upon being removed from his and the mother’s care.[44]Both parents maintain they have changed, citing new coping strategies such as the use of a word spoken in Spanish as a method of agreed de-escalation when previously they may have argued, outdoor activities to benefit their mental health, and the formation of a new business venture to benefit themselves and others which has many followers online. The mother described involving herself in separate new interests/ventures and acquiring new friends through those. The father admitted to his ongoing use of cannabis to calm himself and to manage his stress, his conversion to Islam and the benefit of his spirituality, prayers and meditation in managing his mental health.[45]Both parents emphasised their commitment and clear intention to have Betty placed back in their care and their asserted willingness to work openly and honestly with professionals to achieve this outcome. They each spoke of Betty’s wishes and feelings of wanting to be in their care and her repeated questions to them about when she was ‘coming home’.[46]The father said he did not want a final decision being made by the court about his daughter at this final hearing, but instead he wanted a further period of assessment of the changes the parents had now made. He spoke of his belief he may have Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) or Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) or may possibly be on the autistic spectrum (ASD). He said he was going to attend MIND - the mental health charity service next week about his mental health, and he needed to go to the GP to get some medication. He said he understood the court could not give him his daughter back without further assessment because he understood further changes needed to be made and he needed to take these steps first. The father believed with medication and his attendance at MIND, sufficient changes could be achieved within as little as 6 weeks and this short period was worth adjourning for if it meant Betty could be returned to their care at the end of it.[47]Both parents deny there has ever been any violence or abuse in their relationship and assert they invented the allegations which have been documented basically, to tell social care what they wanted to hear ‘to get rid of’ social care, for which they are sorry. They accept there have been ‘some arguments and police call outs’ but suggest “No professional has identified Betty suffering significant harm, despite that, and she is a happy, bubbly little girl”. Even if the court does not accept this, it is submitted on behalf of the mother that the last incident of abuse which the local authority relies upon was in October 2025 and there has been no further conflict in their relationship over the course of the past 8 months which demonstrates change.[48]The parents criticise the social worker and children’s guardian for not conducting any updating assessment of those changes within these proceedings, choosing to rely on the previous parenting assessment which is now two years old. They are critical of Ms Bishawu in particular for not making enough effort to speak directly to the parents herself but choosing to rely on the final analysis conducted by her colleague whilst she was unexpectedly off work.[49]The parents’ accept they have not engaged with the various interventions and/or courses recommended by professionals but suggest they have made the necessary changes by utilising alternative strategies which are outlined above. It is submitted on their behalf that it does not matter how changes have been arrived at as long as the outcome is the same. The father’s evidence is that he has “repeatedly asked for support for over a year, I’ve asked what I could do and not received any. I’ve actively sought help but very little practical assistance has been given.”[50]Both parents submit a further period of assessment will not be detrimental to Betty because she is placed within a family arrangement and unaware of any delay. If the court is not persuaded to direct further assessment, then the parents invite the court to make a child arrangements order for Betty to live with MGM and MGP and not an SGO as it is the less interventionist order.[51]The father seeks more contact than is proposed and it is submitted if he could afford to see Betty at a contact centre every month then the court should direct this takes place. His preference is for his own mother to supervise it in order to provide a more ‘normal family life’ for Betty.

ANALYSIS

[52]I begin by recording the fact this final hearing has been an exceptionally difficult and demanding hearing to conduct. The mother has required breaks in giving her oral evidence to manage her understandable emotional distress for which I make no criticism, but it has been the father’s behaviour during the hearing towards professionals and the court which has posed the most challenges and may only be truly understood by listening to some of his outbursts.[53]It is always difficult for parents subjected to the stress and pressure of court proceedings to maintain their composure when giving evidence or, as ‘F’ has chosen to do, when cross examining witnesses, and Judges who sit in the family courts are very familiar with acknowledging and understanding this stress and make substantial allowances for it. However, this father’s behaviour and presentation during the hearing has included unjustified verbal abuse and false accusations which went far beyond what could reasonably be expected, and which caused a high degree of tension and the utilisation of the PVP protocol (for managing potentially violent people) from day 2 of the hearing onwards. It causes me to have a great deal of concern for the impact witnessing any of this behaviour would have upon a child. I do recognise the extremes of the father’s behaviour are likely to be more pronounced in court than they are at home but it was at such a high level, particularly the abuse directed towards the professionals, that I am persuaded it is highly likely to be repeated and witnessed by Betty to some degree if she was living at home.[54]Hereafter, I consider an appropriate place to start is with an analysis and my conclusions about the credibility of the parents and the reliability of their evidence.

THE CREDIBILITY AND RELIABILITY OF THE PARENTS

[55]The parents admit they have lied to the court, to the social worker and to the children’s guardian. The evidence they have each given at this final hearing is that they have been in a relationship for the past 5 years with no period of separation at all. If true, it means the mother also lied to the court appointed expert, Dr M. who assessed her in the previous proceedings when she told him the relationship ended in February 2023 H219 . In short, the parents concede they have persistently lied to everyone when they told them their relationship was over. They have agreed they did this because they knew Betty would be removed from the mother’s care at the conclusion of the first set of proceedings if the truth were known, and they assert as this outcome would have been fundamentally wrong for Betty, it justified them taking the steps they took to conceal the reality of their relationship.[56]The parents’ lies have extended into these second set of proceedings when the mother initially denied being in a relationship with the father or that she had been in contact with him until the local authority made clear its intention to seek forensic interrogation of her mobile phone. Only at that point did the mother make partial admissions she had been in contact with ‘F’ in contravention of the safety plan which was in place.[57]Subsequent to that hearing and Betty’s removal, the mother filed her first statement, it is undated but was uploaded to the case lines bundle on the 23 June 2025 and the mother accepted in her oral evidence she had approved it and it was a document prepared on her instructions at that time. It contains a statement of truth, and in it, she accepts ‘F’s behaviour poses a risk of harm, she accepts unnecessary contact with him but denies he lives in her home. She does accept he has slept overnight at the property. The mother goes on to give a great deal of detail about how the father came back into her life after the previous proceedings ended, how he coerced and controlled her into letting him into her flat “to see if anyone was there”. She asserts she asked him to leave but “F was acting strange and said that I had already breached the order by letting him in. At that stage I was worried F would report me to social care and that Betty would be removed from my care. I felt I had made a massive mistake, even though I had not invited F, and had asked him to leave”.[58]The mother goes on to explain there was one night when the father climbed in through a window without her permission, and he said to her she was having the “wrong people around Betty” and “that he wanted to see Betty all the time. F was putting his hands on me, and he had my phone in his hand. I was scared and worried, so I thought it was easier to keep letting F into the house….I was terrified F would tell social care so I allowed this to happen.” Elsewhere in the statement she admits going out on day trips with ‘F’ and Betty as a family “but felt I had no option but to keep F happy to avoid him telling social care anything. I regret my actions and I want to break all contact with F and his family. I have told the social worker I need help to get away from them, I have asked to go to a refuge to keep me safe and so that I can get the professional input I desperately need”.[59]In her oral evidence, the mother asserts all of this is a lie, she stated she has never been threatened or assaulted by ‘F’ and they have lived together throughout as a happy family. Her explanation for telling lies to the court in June 2025 is:
“I was in a really bad mental health battle, when social services were involved my head thoughts were not normal. Even processing the truth in my head own head was hard. At that point I still wasn’t ready to tell the truth”
. When asked why she lied about ‘F’ putting his hands on her and being scared of him, she said:
“I had the social worker telling me ‘F’ was a risk but in my head I didn’t see him as a risk. I had seen him with his own son, Andrew and with his friends’ kids and he didn’t pose a risk. In my head I was coming up with lies to say there was some risk, I was a lying a lot to cover up with ‘F”
. The mother admitted to making up lies about ‘F’ because “I didn’t want to lose my daughter”.[60]The Father’s oral evidence was similarly characterised by a pervasive and admitted pattern of dishonesty, inconsistency, and fabrication across multiple material issues. He conceded he and the mother had deliberately lied to the court and professionals over a prolonged period, including falsely denying their ongoing relationship and inventing allegations of domestic abuse to manipulate social services, he later retracted earlier admissions of violence (including those incidents he had previously accepted in sworn statements) and claimed those too were lies, asserting instead that the entirety of the previous proceedings were “built on lies”. He accepted giving a ‘no comment’ interview to the Police and providing them with a pre-prepared statement when he was interviewed following the incident in June 2025 in which he was not completely honest, and repeatedly altered his account of key events, including the circumstances of the June 2025 incident, his reasons for attending his father’s property, and whether any violence occurred and by whom, while introducing new explanations only at a late stage or when challenged.[61]His evidence about his drug use was similarly unreliable, as he gave conflicting accounts about the frequency and timing of his cocaine use, denied declarations he had made to testing services, and failed to disclose more recent use in February 2026 until he was cross-examined about it, justifying this by stating:
‘that’s because no one has asked me’
. His evidence in general was further undermined by evasive answers, an inability or refusal to recall incidents he had previously described in detail, often deflecting giving answers by descending into verbal abuse, and the making of demonstrably false allegations against others in court. Taken as a whole, his evidence revealed a sustained course of deliberate deception, shifting narratives, and attempts to mislead the court on the important issues of violence, substance misuse, and his relationship with the mother.[62]There were also inconsistencies between the parents’ oral evidence, with the mother telling the court that she didn’t know when the father had last used cocaine because she wasn’t “with him 24/7” and then referred to only one occasion when the father went away with his own father on holiday when he used it but apart from that she denied any knowledge about the father’s cocaine use. Her oral evidence to the court was that the father has ‘not used drugs since his last drug test’ and when asked if he had told her he was taking cocaine she dissembled and said, “I don’t remember, we weren’t together all the time.” In his own evidence, the father admitted in cross examination to using cocaine in February 2026 and attributed to doing so to the stress of not seeing Betty, he also told the court the mother knew about this at the time.[63]I have now had the benefit of observing these parents first hand in court over two sets of court proceedings and consider there is no substitute for seeing, hearing and witnessing the subtleties of their behaviour even when it is not expressed verbally. I formed the impression the mother is a vulnerable young woman and the psychological profile previously prepared by Dr M. continues to be applicable; she has a degree of fragility to her presentation, high levels of anxiety and a degree of low mood and mistrust. There continues to be significant interpersonal vulnerability in the form of emotional dependence and acquiescence in an intimate relationship H214 .[64]The father in contrast, is very self-confident, strong, both physically and in presentation, and robust in his personality. He has no difficulty at all with challenging authority whether that is being expressed by a Police officer, social workers, legal representatives or by the court. He is a man who struggles to display respect for that authority on a consistent basis evidenced by being apologetic for his behaviour only for it to be repeated a short while later.[65]I have considered the totality of the lies these two parents have told which are significant and extensive, they are detailed, pervasive and enduring, and involve incorporating other family members, often unwittingly, into their deceit. I have considered the way they have presented and told their lies over the past two years and at court. I have considered alternative reasons for why they may have said them and whether it is because they struggle, cognitively, to distinguish between the crooked truth or a straight lie, but the overwhelming picture which emerges is a couple who have lied and then told further lies about the lies they have told, such that there is very little evidence to be derived from them which may be relied upon unless it is robustly supported by some other independent piece of evidence. They agree they have told lies to achieve the desired outcome of keeping or having Betty in their care, and as this is the primary issue for this final hearing the overarching likelihood is that they continue to do so. Whenever their evidence conflicts with that given by another witness, I prefer the evidence of the other witness.

FINDINGS SOUGHT TO SATISFY THE SECTION 31 STATUTORY THRESHOLD

[66]The final schedule of findings sought is that which appears at A39 – A40 of the case lines bundle. Paragraph one is a simple factual recording of the outcome and findings made in the previous proceedings in February 2025 which have not been appealed or reopened as part of this final hearing and accordingly, that paragraph is correct and agreed by the mother. As a matter of law, the starting point for this hearing is that those findings made by the court in February 2025 still stand.[67]The narrative part of paragraph 2 is also correct and it is accepted by the parents they knew a safety plan was in existence and they should not breach the terms of it, and if they did, there was a likelihood of further proceedings. The parents accept they have been in an ongoing relationship and only admitted to the existence of that relationship after the court hearing on the [x] June 2025 having both denied it until after these proceedings started as I have set out above. They do not accept their relationship has ever placed Betty at risk of physical or emotional harm or that ‘F’ poses a risk of harm to Betty but I find that it has, demonstrated by the findings made by the court in February 2025 and addressed further below.[68]The parents need to understand the findings this court made in February 2025 did not rely solely on what they now assert to have been their lies but were reached after an evaluation of the evidence as a whole once the jigsaw pieces of evidence were placed together. For example, the incident on the 30 March 2024 was supported by the Police report from a member of the public in which the father is described as “dragging the female back into the address. The baby was in her arms. The baby was crying. The caller described the dragging as a bear hug. They said when he took her back to the house she was on the floor and he was bent over her punching her numerous times to each side. The caller said this went on for quite a bit then it all went quiet. The caller then heard a loud scream and this is what triggered them to call the police”. One only has to read the transcript of the judgment delivered on the 3 February 2025 to understand the court’s approach and whether the alleged incident on the 16 December 2023 should have been added to the schedule as well.[69]Sub-paragraph 2(a): The parents do not agree their relationship is ‘toxic’ and this is not a word used by Ms Boyle but is one lifted from the descriptions given by the parents at various times about their relationship. I do not consider it is necessary or desirable to confine the description of the parents’ relationship to a single word. On the findings this court has made previously and on the evidence this court has heard and read at this final hearing, I am persuaded this is a relationship which has featured physical and emotional abuse, volatile arguments and collusion, and the deceit the parents have willingly participated in and presented towards professionals has placed further stress upon their relationship causing the mother to self-report feeling suicidal and a ‘stress-head’, and the father to self-medicate with illegal drugs, notably cannabis to manage his mental health. All of this creates a toxic environment in which to care safely for a child and is likely to cause Betty significant physical and emotional harm, but it does not cause me to describe the whole of the parents’ relationship to be toxic because they have also described some positive features in it of mutual support in their business venture, their enjoyment of outdoor activities, their shared participation in community activities, and the mother said:
“He has helped me so much, I genuinely don’t think I would be here if it were not for him, I tried to take my life twice, I genuinely couldn’t cope. I don’t have my daughter and I was being sent photos of her by the foster carer and I could see she was sad and has been crying, she was not happy, and ‘F’ was telling me, ‘we can do it,’ he helps me.”
[70]Paragraph 2(b). This allegation emanates solely from the mother and as it is not corroborated by any other source, I do not make this finding as I do not find her to be a credible witness.[71]Paragraph 2(c) in contrast, is supported by independent evidence and I make this finding. It relates to an incident between the parents which occurred at Manchester airport in October 2025 and it consisted of a verbal argument which caused members of the public to be sufficiently concerned they called the police. The parents accept there was an argument but they downplay and minimise the severity of it. In her oral evidence the mother attributed it to problems with her own mental health. I do not consider it to be necessary to identify who started the argument or why it happened simply that it would have been emotionally harmful to Betty to witness her parents arguing in that way had she been in their care and the local authority is entitled to this finding.[72]Paragraph 3 relates to the index incident in June 2025. I have borne in mind that the father has not been able to cross examine Charlie in person as he would have wished, and that is something which has to be weighed in the balance when evaluating the evidence. Furthermore, due to the father applying very late for a witness summons to secure the attendance of his own father [PGF] at court, who was unable to attend within the time frame of this final hearing, I have not placed any weight on [PGF’s] section 9 CJA 1967 statement which forms part of the Police disclosure, no statement having been required or obtained from him by any party within these proceedings.[73]Having considered the totality of the evidence in respect of the incident in June 2025, I am persuaded that ‘F’ physically assaulted his younger brother, Charlie on this date and the local authority is entitled to the finding it seeks for the following reasons;[74]Firstly, there are the contemporaneous accounts given by Charlie when he describes the assault by being pinned against a door by ‘F’ who had his hand around his throat/neck and his neck being squeezed, before going on to bend his fingers back causing him pain and injury to his hand. Charlie describes ‘F’ shouting and screaming at him before ‘storming off’. This account is recorded on the Police Officer, PC Bugnol’s body worn camera and is a complaint made immediately to the Police when Charlie opens the door very soon after the incident occurred. The police enter the property to look for ‘F’ and Charlie gives the same account recorded on the bodycam a few minutes later. The immediacy, spontaneity and consistency of the complaint makes it both compelling and credible.[75]Secondly, on the same date, Charlie makes a section 9 CJA statement to the Police in which he gives a further consistent account of his assault and photographs are taken of reddening to his neck which are filed in the court bundle. The father has suggested these red marks were caused by Charlie to himself with a towel to fabricate the allegation, and that no red marks are visible on the bodycam footage uploaded into the case lines bundle. PC Bugnol’s evidence is that he could not recall whether he saw any red marks or not at the time, the incident having taken place a year ago, and that the red marks may or may not be visible on the bodycam due to the low number of pixels used in recording in order to maximise the amount of footage the camera is capable of recording and storing at any given time.[76]I have considered the father’s submissions on the issue of whether the red marks existed or not but I do not find them to be helpful or persuasive. Charlie made an immediate complaint of how the assault occurred and I cannot identify any compelling reason for why he would lie about it, he has never retracted it or suggested it is untrue, simply that he does not wish to be held responsible for telling the truth and the consequences which may flow from that. I accept the submissions made on behalf of Betty that the easiest thing for Charlie to have done, having since reconciled with ‘F’, would be to say he had lied and he wants Betty to go home but he did not do that when the ISW Rosie Cole spoke to him as part of her Re W assessment, instead he maintained his allegation was the truth. Charlie has produced contemporaneous photographic evidence to support his complaint and I take notice of the fact some injuries/marks/bruises are likely to be visible on some people immediately after infliction, for other people they may take time to evolve and be visible or they may not appear at all. Whilst the appearance of red marks is consistent with an injury having been inflicted, the absence of them does NOT mean an injury did not occur.[77]Thirdly, I have also taken into account the father’s shifting explanations of why he went to the property in the first place; whether he had gone to collect some tools as he alleged in his pre-prepared police statement or whether he had gone in response to an inappropriate text being sent by Charlie to the mother which included reference to masturbation. The mother gave a section 9 CJA statement to the Police on the [x] June 2025 in which she alleges the argument was because of the comments Charlie had made to her about masturbating, but in these proceedings she filed a statement alleging she did not know what the argument was about. The father’s inconsistencies about why it started and what happened during this incident causes me to doubt his reliability. If the father went round to confront Charlie about his inappropriate text message to the mother as he suggested he did in his oral evidence, this increases the likelihood of the father behaving aggressively and I prefer Charlie’s description of the incident.[78]Fourthly, there has been no dispute the father’s assault of Andrew occurred in the context of him using illegal drugs or ‘coming down’ from using drugs. As the father accepts he was using illegal drugs in June 2025 when the assault upon Charlie occurred, I find it to be highly likely and consistent with his previous aggressive behaviour that he would have behaved as Charlie alleged in the same context.[79]Finally, ‘EX’ gave evidence to the court about this incident on day 5 of the hearing, the father having only notified the parties and court he wished to call him as a witness on day 1 of this final hearing, at which point there was no statement from ‘EX’. Mr EX then provided an email and gave evidence once he was available. He was asked whether he could recall when the incident happened but he could not. He was able to tell the court that the PGF “had rung me and asked me to check on Charlie because he had been arguing with ‘F’… I asked Charlie, is he ok, he said yes, I gave it 10 minutes and then I left”. He later clarified it was probably not even 10 minutes. EX said PGF had seemed “concerned and a bit angry and wanted him to check on Charlie because ‘F’ and ‘Z’ had been arguing, he may have said more details but the passage of time – I can’t recall all the details”. Charlie told Mr EX; “F had grabbed him but he had no visible marks and he seemed fine to me”. Mr EX told the court he had been in a rush and wasn’t able to say whether the mother was also in the property.[80]I do not consider there is anything in Mr EX’s evidence which undermines the evidence given by Charlie. It is consistent with an argument and incident having occurred which has not been disputed by the parents; it is consistent with Charlie’s account he was grabbed by ‘F’; the incident was of sufficient severity to cause Charlie to call his own father who summoned Mr EX to go round to check on his younger son, and even if the red marks to Charlie’s neck were not visible at the time of Mr EX’s visit, this does not mean the injury did not happen as Charlie described or that the red marks did not appear shortly thereafter.[81]Paragraph 4 of the schedule of findings relates to the father’s use of drugs including Class A drugs. It is correct he failed to comply with the hair strand drug tests directed by the court on the 25 June 2025 and delayed his compliance until after the attempted IRH in November 2025, only at that point in the chronology did he comply with it. At the hearing on the 25 June the father asserted ‘he had not used cocaine since March 2025 and stopped using cannabis three weeks ago’ B27 but he told the drug testing company on the 11 December 2025 that the “Date he last used: 20/10/2025 Exact. In the last 1 years (20/10/2024- 20/20/2025) I took cocaine 1 times per month. I usually took 2 grams each time” which demonstrates it is more likely he lied to the court on the 25 June.[82]The real significance of the drug testing is based in the results and the father’s admissions. I accept the validity and outcome of the hair strand drug tests dated December 2025 because there is no reason to doubt the reliability of the drug testing process, and the father admits to his cannabis use which is reflected in them. I cannot identify any reason for why the results would be correct for the father’s declaration about his cannabis use and his actual usage but incorrect for his use of cocaine or his usage on at least a few days from around early September to early November 2025. The father’s ongoing use of cocaine at that time is also consistent with his admission he was still using it in February 2026 which he belatedly made during the course of the hearing. I make a finding that at the time the local authority intervened to protect Betty in June 2025, the father was using both cannabis and cocaine and Betty is likely to suffer significant physical and emotional harm as a consequence of his drug use because the father accepts his use of cocaine was a risk factor in his previous assault and conviction relating to Andrew. THE WELFARE CHECKLIST[83]I turn now to the welfare considerations by reference to the welfare checklist. Betty’s wishes and feelings.[84]There is no dispute that Betty has a loving bond with her parents and enjoys spending time with them during supervised contact. The children’s guardian has read many, but not all, of the contact notes and is able to confirm Betty says she wishes to go home and asks when it will happen. Both parents are committed to and love their daughter a great deal and want Betty to live with them. It is likely Betty would wish to live with her parents as her first choice if it was safe for her to do so. In the alternative, Betty is happy and settled living with her grandmother and ‘step-grandfather’ and shares a close bond with them as well. Betty is only 3 years old and too young to comprehend the magnitude of the decision this court is being asked to make or the professional concerns which have led to this matter coming before the court. Her wishes and feelings have to be understood within that context. Betty’s physical, emotional and educational needs[85]Betty is in good physical health and has no complex physical health needs which would distinguish her from any other child of the same age. She is described by everyone as a confident, ‘sassy’, happy, little girl who is full of energy and very loving. In contrast however, Betty has also experienced significant emotional harm in the care of her parents and whilst the outward signs of this may not be obvious, it has in my judgment clearly occurred.[86]The parents do not accept any of their behaviour or parenting has impacted adversely upon their ability to meet Betty’s care consistently and they rely upon how well Betty is doing at nursery school and what a delightful and lovely child she is as evidence of this. The father accepted there had been numerous police callouts to the family home but stated there was nothing to show Betty had been mentally or physically affected by it. However, I am persuaded the parents are wrong about this; Betty was present in her mother’s arms on the 30 March 2024 when the father repeatedly assaulted the mother by punching her which caused Betty to be distressed and crying; and Betty was present in the paternal grandfather’s home with the mother when ‘F’ turned up in June 2025 and assaulted Charlie. On the 14 November 2025 the mother told the court she did not see or hear the incident but the door to the room where she was with Betty was ‘ajar’ which persuades me both the mother and Betty were likely to have heard the argument and assault between ‘F’ and Charlie.[87]It all persuades me that Betty has seen or heard the ill-treatment of other individuals at the hands of her father which is emotionally abusive to her. Children may suffer direct psychological and/or emotional harm from living with, witnessing and being victims of domestic abuse and violence. In this case it is demonstrated by Ms Boyle’s evidence where she described Betty as being, “cautious and wary around men which the local authority is of the view is due to her experiences of violent men in her life” C61 . “Betty talks to herself at bedtime when she is feeling worried, when she had a week in respite care she was heard reassuring herself that she was okay and that she was safe”. Betty has also been consistent in sharing her views around ‘F’s behaviour to a variety of people including her foster carers and her grandparents, she often refers to ‘F’ as ‘naughty’. She will also speak about ‘F’s violence towards the mother; “seemingly at random times when no one has mentioned F. Betty has made various comments such as ‘daddy shouts’, ‘daddy hit mummy’, ‘daddy spit at mummy’, ‘daddy hurt mummy’, ‘mummy run away from daddy’. ‘Betty also spoke about M being upset and scared”. All of which is consistent with the findings of violence found by the court to have been perpetrated by ‘F’.[88]Whilst Betty may still be demonstrating a level of resilience to what she has experienced in the care of her parents this must not be taken for granted, and it is likely to have been mitigated by the involvement of MGM and MGP in ensuring Betty’s emotional needs have been consistently met over the past 10 months.[89]Betty’s experience of living in the care of her parents persuades me that she is likely to have a greater need than the average 3 year old child for long term emotional stability and security in an environment where her emotional needs will be consistently met, to counterbalance the harm she has experienced whilst living in her parents’ care. The likely impact on the child of any change in their circumstances[90]Betty has been living with her grandparents for the past ten months, and whilst her primary wish is to return to live with her parents her behaviour and presentation would indicate she is also happy to remain where she is if that outcome cannot be achieved.[91]If the change in Betty’s circumstances is one where she leaves the home of her grandparents where she is currently thriving and is placed in the care of her parents prematurely before they have made the changes they need to make, then the likely impact on Betty will be a significantly detrimental one. This is because it is likely to lead to her being removed from their care for the second time causing her further emotional instability, insecurity and increased anxiety. Betty’s age, background and any other relevant characteristics[92]Betty is a three year old white British female child who will be living and growing up within her birth family either by remaining with the maternal grandmother and her partner or by returning to live with her parents. This is important for Betty because she has a strong sense of family bond and connection. It is also part of Betty’s background that she has witnessed violence being perpetrated by her father upon her mother and upon her uncle, Charlie which no child should ever have to do. Any harm Betty has suffered or is at risk of suffering and the capability of the parents and any other person to meet the child’s needs.[93]In light of the father’s previous conviction for assaulting his son, Andrew, and the findings this court has made against him of a second assault upon a child, Charlie when Betty was in the property, as well as the findings of violence made against him in the previous proceedings perpetrated upon the mother, there is a clear and obvious danger of Betty being placed at risk of witnessing further violence being perpetrated by him.[94]In addition to this risk, there is the additional likelihood of Betty suffering significant physical harm herself by being assaulted by the father arising from his use of illegal drugs. It has not been disputed that the use of illegal drugs was a risk factor in the father’s assault of Andrew who he could not settle and due to being on drugs, or ‘coming down’ from using drugs, assaulted him. As the father continues to use cannabis daily and was still using cocaine as recently as February 2026, I am persuaded this risk continues to exist.[95]The mother has demonstrated her ability to care for Betty’s basic care needs to a high standard but she has also demonstrated an inability to protect her from the above risks by resuming/continuing in her relationship with ‘F’, and the likelihood is that she will continue to prioritise this relationship above her daughter’s emotional and physical safety.[96]At this final hearing the parents’ case is that they may not have engaged with the interventions recommended by the professionals to ameliorate these risks but they have achieved what is required of them by their engagement in alternative strategies, such as outdoor activities, setting up their business venture, utilising prayers, spirituality and meditation, plus other, healthy outdoor and community activities with the same results. I make it clear, these parents are to be commended for participating in all of those healthy and positive activities which will assist them in the promotion of their mental health and wellbeing, but they are not sufficient, in my judgment, to address the longstanding risks which exist in this case.[97]In respect of the mother, she needs to engage successfully with interventions to address the vulnerabilities in her mental health; and in respect of the father he needs to engage successfully with interventions to address his substance misuse, his mental health, and his high risk of perpetrating violence and other forms of domestic abuse.[98]The mother has been reluctant to address the vulnerabilities in her mental health. She initially engaged with talking therapies on the 9 September 2025 but then cancelled the next two sessions and has not returned to it. Her current presentation reveals the extent to which this need is unaddressed and ongoing and it underlines her vulnerability.[99]The father asserts he has not been provided with any help but I do not accept this; he was twice referred to the ‘Inspire to Change’ Course during the previous proceedings, which is a course devised to address concerns relating to domestic abuse, but he has not completed it. He told the court in his oral evidence: I went to the ‘Inspire to Change’ course and I were talking to everyone in the room, I am an outspoken young man and the person who was trying to tell me how to treat a woman was a woman taking testosterone with purple hair and chin hair, they didn’t even know if they were a man or a woman, so for me to take advice from woman who doesn’t even know if they are a man, I wasn’t taking advice from them. A woman with a beard taking testosterone telling me how to treat a woman – how do they know what to tell me”. The father went on to say he realises now, that he was wrong but this does not change the fact he has not completed such an important intervention, most probably because he does not accept he has ever perpetrated any domestic abuse in the first place.[100]When I turn to consider the likelihood of the father responding to stressful situations in front of Betty in a way which involves verbal and/or physical aggression/violence, I am persuaded this risk continues to exist. The reasons for this are twofold; firstly because it is consistent with how he has behaved in the past and his behaviour was not inhibited by Betty’s presence, and secondly because he has not undertaken any recognised therapeutic interventions to reduce the likelihood of repetition. I am reinforced in reaching this conclusion because it is consistent with how he presented during the hearing itself when expressing his opinions and views about the children’s guardian and social care professionals. The capacity to regulate one’s emotional responses under stress is not a peripheral parenting skill; it lies at the heart of the child’s safety and their daily lived experiences.[101]The father agrees he has not yet addressed his substance misuse. In his oral evidence he accepted he continues to take cannabis on a daily basis. When asked why he had never mentioned taking cocaine in February 2026 ‘until about 20 minutes ago’, the father said “that’s because no one has asked me” even though he did not mention it in his evidence in chief when going through his written statements or correct any of them. He was asked why he took cocaine in February 2026 and he attributed it to the stress of not seeing Betty, and that ‘things with Andrew were not lining up right’ which was a reference to his contact with Andrew. He said then “me and M went out together to a murder mystery evening and as soon as I had a drink I moved on to cocaine”. The father went on to say he was going to stay away from these friends in the future so they cannot influence him to drink alcohol but that was the extent of his coping strategy.[102]The father emphasised his intention to engage with MIND at his forthcoming appointment and to attend his GP to seek help. The father believes he may have undiagnosed ADD/ADHD or ASD, and he may be right about that, but if prescribed medication was required he explained his reluctance to take it, expressing his preference for herbal medication instead.[103]In his oral evidence the father alluded to his behaviour being fuelled by childhood trauma ‘which has reached into his adulthood’, and he may be right about that as well, but elsewhere in his evidence, and in contrast to what he had just said, he denied there was any need to engage with any therapy to address this trauma and asserted it had all been resolved by his engagement with therapy when he was a child.[104]The information provided by the father’s probation officer to Ms Boyle when she was preparing her final statement is that the father has been assessed as being of high risk of harm by the probation service with the following information being shared: “Children - those identified as being most at risk are children who ‘F’ has contact with, specifically within his personal relationships and social/family networks rather than children within the general public. Note, ‘F’ has been convicted of assaulting his son in 2021 and more recently has been charged with strangulation of his brother, Charlie’. Known adults -previous partners identified as being at risk are M and [Andrew’s mother] based on previous DV history. However there are no current risk concerns as the parties are no longer together. Public - future partners and a risk of harm to other road users, pedestrians and police when driving illegally. He has no violent or public order convictions which could place members of the public in general at ROSH (risk of significant harm).There is no evidence to suggest that ‘F’ poses a risk to himself although it is noted he has previously misused alcohol and cocaine. Accidental suicide could occur if he returned to high levels of substance misuse upon his release.[105]The probation service were asked to comment on the nature of the risk; Children - the most likely risk is physical harm. This could include [assault] as in the previous offence but other acts of violence are not discounted including slapping, grabbing, punching or kicking. The victim [Andrew] had a bruise on his cheek and on his leg in addition to the bruise left by the [specific nature of the assault] from his father. Andrew was subject to child protection planning at the time of the assault due to DV within his parents’ relationship. The children are at risk of being exposed to domestic abuse including physical violence. This is very likely to cause emotional distress such as fear and helplessness but there is also the potential for neglect due to the victim being unable to care, fully for the children as she is being subject to domestic abuse and her prioritisation of meeting the perpetrators needs to try pacify and reduce harmful incidents. The risk is further extended to the serious act of strangulation which is the current allegation against his brother for which ‘F’ is due to stand trial in August 2025. Known adults - evidence of physical and emotional abuse against former partners. Public/partners/known - ‘F’s partners are at risk of both serious physical and emotional harm. Risk of serious harm to road users based on previous offence of DWD (driving whilst disqualified) which was aggravated by the manner of driving and the police chase.[106]The evidence in this case persuades me that in years since this local authority first became involved with this family, and especially over the course of the past 12 months, the parents have not taken any significant steps to address their mental health problems, the father’s substance misuse or the likelihood of him becoming physically and/or verbally aggressive when experiencing stress. I cannot reach the conclusion either of them has the ability to care safely for Betty at this time.[107]When I add to these risks the high likelihood of parental collusion and dishonesty to conceal them, it persuades me that if Betty was in their care they are only likely to admit to any incident or escalation of concern when they have no other option but to do so. I do not accept the absence of any police call outs since October 2025 means their relationship has significantly changed when, in the context of this case, it is far more likely they are colluding together not to make such reports to the police. If Betty were returned to their care and there was a likelihood of her being removed for a second time, the far greater likelihood is that they would both again lie about any incident rather than run the risk of Betty being removed. This outcome is likely to place Betty at further risk of significant harm to her emotional and physical welfare.[108]In contrast to the above, MGM and MGP are providing Betty with high quality, consistent care and she is thriving. The children’s guardian agrees. The SGO assessment of them conducted by the local authority is a positive assessment and despite the parents’ many criticisms of Ms Boyle and the local authority, it is not one which they seek to persuade me to go behind or reject. I therefore accept the contents of it and acknowledge the risks I have identified for Betty in the care of her parents do not exist in the care of her grandmother and MGP. Conclusions[109]It is for each of these reasons I have been persuaded the risks the parents present to Betty’s welfare are so high that she cannot be returned to their care.[110]I have considered whether further assessment of either of these parents by an ISW is likely to produce any additional evidence of value and I have concluded it would not and such an assessment is not necessary. This is because the parents were assessed during the previous proceedings and there has been a lack of positive change of a nature or degree by either of them since then to persuade me such an assessment is necessary. If anything, the risks have escalated demonstrated by the father’s assault of another child.[111]I agree with the evidence of Ms Bishawu; “Since November (when the final analysis was provided to the court by her colleague at CAFCASS), there is no evidence of any change given by the parents. If that evidence comes before me, like if ‘F’ did the ‘Inspire to Change’ programme or his hair strand drug test results had been negative, then I would at that stage have asked to do an updated analysis”. I also agree with her opinion to commend the parents for embarking on their business venture and the other steps to improve their situation but “It doesn’t address the concerns of domestic abuse, substance misuse or M’s ability to protect Betty. It may be great for their spiritual health and wellbeing but it doesn’t mitigate the risk for Betty. [what they have done] is not an accredited course and I have to work with courses that I recognise….what they are saying is all self-reporting. It is great that dad is taking steps to go to MIND but we need to see some evidence they have actually engaged with the service”.[112]I have also considered the statutory obligation to consider the delay such assessment would precipitate and the likely impact of such delay upon Betty’s welfare, and I do not accept it would be for such short a period of six weeks as suggested by the father, or even two months to the end of August as suggested by the mother. This is because neither parent has begun the interventions they need to engage with and even assuming they commit to doing so now (when there is ample evidence to show they have not done so in the past), it will require a lengthy period of assessment and observation to be confident the necessary changes have been made and are capable of being sustained. The concerns in this case are not recent or short lived but have endured for many years and it is likely to take an equally long period to repair them.[113]I also take into account and accept Ms Bishawu’s evidence about the impact such delay is likely to have upon Betty; “My concern is that Betty needs stability, she needs permanence and no one can give her a clear answer of where she is going to be living. Her parents’ can’t, her grandparents can’t. At the moment, what she needs to be told is, ‘this is where you live and this is who you see’.[114]For each of these reasons I refuse the parents’ application for further assessment, it is simply not necessary in this case.[115]When I turn to consider where Betty should live and be brought up it should be obvious from the above reasons why I prefer the option of MGM and MGP as the only option likely to meet her welfare needs and to keep her safe.[116]In considering whether such family placement should be made pursuant to a child arrangements order or a SGO I consider the making of a SGO to be a necessary and proportionate order to make. This is for the following reasons;[117]Firstly, I acknowledge the mother is currently capable of working collaboratively with the maternal grandmother to promote Betty’s welfare and there are examples of how this has been achieved within the evidence such as Betty moving to attend a nursery closer to the home of her maternal grandparents and going on holiday with them. In contrast, I also take into account this has not always been the case when in August 2022 the parents made an allegation of assault by MGM upon the mother to the police, and in her oral evidence the mother said; “in the past we’ve had our disagreements, but sometimes she can be spiteful and the next day she won’t be, and I don’t know how my mum will be with me in a year or so. I would like to have the last say about my daughter…yes she has taken Betty away on holiday but I’ve never been asked about it. If she leaves the country I would like her to ask my permission, she does do things without my permission”.[118]I take account of the father’s inability to respect authority and the high likelihood he would not accept the authority of MGM or MGP to make any decisions about Betty which he does not agree with. This is likely to lead to further disagreement and conflict once the local authority is no longer involved with this family. I also take into account the extra support from the kinship team which would be available to MGM and MGP and which they are likely to need to help them navigate the family dynamics.[119]Having considered the recommendations of the professionals and the evidence in this case, I am persuaded they are correct and a special guardianship order will minimise the likelihood of arguments and disagreement between MGM, MGP and the parents because the grandparents will have the enhanced parental responsibility to be able to have the final say in any decisions concerning Betty’s welfare. When I turn to consider the magnitude of the changes the parents need to make, and the lengthy period it is likely to take for them to achieve and consolidate those changes, I consider the order required is likely to be one for the long term if not an enduring one for the remainder of Betty’s childhood.[120]Until such time as the father genuinely and consistently accepts the problems which exist in his behaviour, all of which are fuelled by his mental health problems and his use of drugs, little is going to change for him. In terms of where he is currently placed within any cycle of change I have concluded he is no more than at the pre-contemplative stage of developing insight or accepting changes are necessary, and he fluctuates between denial and being pre-contemplative and cannot move towards engaging consistently with the necessary action to move towards sustainment.[121]Accordingly I made a Special Guardianship Order for Betty to MGM and MGP, and in doing so I must consider section 14B of the Children Act 1989 and specifically whether a child arrangements order containing any provision for contact should also be made.[122]I am not persuaded there is likely to be any benefit to Betty in the making of a child arrangements order for her to spend time with either of her parents when the proposed special guardians are willing and able to promote it without an order. This will give them greater flexibility to change and adapt these arrangements as Betty grows up without the need for further litigation or the obligation to stick rigidly to what is enshrined in a court order.[123]I endorse the proposals for Betty and her parents to spend time together as suggested by Ms Boyle and Ms Bishawu as follows:[124]In respect of the mother, this is to be supervised by MGM and/or MGP, at a minimum frequency of once a fortnight for 2 hours. If MGM and MGP are able to promote contact at the existing frequency of weekly, then it may take place at this higher level as well. If additional contact may be facilitated by way of video calls then there is no restriction on this being provided by MGM and MGP if they consider it will be helpful to meet Betty’s needs.[125]In respect of the father’s contact, this is to be promoted at a minimum frequency of every 6 weeks for two hours if a contact centre is capable of facilitating this frequency and duration. If MGM and MGP are able to promote contact at a higher frequency of monthly and ‘F’ is able to afford to pay for supervised contact at a contact centre at this level, then it may take place at this greater frequency of monthly. I cannot endorse the father’s request for his own mother, [paternal grandmother] to supervise his contact because the assessment of her to do so concluded negatively and she has chosen not to challenge that assessment. There being no other person who has come forward and been positively assessed, the only other option is a professional arrangement at a contact centre.[126]I draw a distinction between the levels of contact for each parent because MGM and MGP are willing to supervise the mother’s contact at a higher level in a more natural, home environment, which is beneficial for Betty and causes little inconvenience to general family life. Ms Bishawu described having “read what a good mum she is from the social care evidence. This is not an issue of parenting capacity but about her lack of ability to protect”. Whereas Betty has both positive and negative memories of her father, and the risk factors posed by ‘F’ are much greater and different to those posed by ‘M’. In addition, transporting Betty to and from a contact centre requires a much greater interruption to family life and if set at too high a frequency it is likely to make it unsustainable for the long term.[127]In due course it may be these contact arrangements may be varied and increased if:(i) the parents successfully complete the work they need to do;(ii) if MGM and MGP are willing and able to commit more time to facilitate it and(iii) it is consistent with Betty’s welfare to spend more time with her parents, but this will also depend on how well the parents respond to and accept Betty living with her grandparents and are able to support rather than undermine the arrangements I have put in place.[128]I strongly recommend MGM and MGP do not permit the mother any unsupervised time with Betty until such time as they are satisfied ‘F’ no longer poses a risk to the mother’s or Betty’s safety. This is because of the extremely high likelihood the mother will permit ‘F’ to have contact with Betty if they do, and both parents will be dishonest about it having taken place. MGM and MGP will need to be very vigilant to protect Betty from the parents’ dishonesty and propensity to be manipulative, such as alleging they have separated, the mother seeking to move in to live with them and seeking to co-parent and in short, telling them what they want to hear in order to fulfil her own wishes and feelings. These are not ones which are likely to keep Betty safe.[129]Finally, I turn to the father’s application to share parental responsibility for Betty which is an application agreed or unopposed by any other party. I have taken into account his commitment to his daughter and the fact he has always attended contact with her; Betty’s relationship and affection for her father; and his concern his role and significance in her life will be diminished once these proceedings end as a reason for applying for it. I take into account the fact I have made a SGO to Betty’s grandparents and the enhanced nature of parental responsibility under that order will not be undermined by the father sharing parental responsibility. Accordingly, I make an order for ‘F’ to share parental responsibility for Betty.[130]For completeness, the approved schedule of facts to satisfy the section 31 statutory criteria is set out below. I direct there is to be an assessment of the costs of the publicly funded parties and I remind all parties that any application for permission to appeal this decision for Betty must be made within 21 days of today’s date. H.H. Judge Marson 25 June 2026 APPROVED SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS IN SATISFACTION OF SECTION 31(2) THRESHOLD CRITERIA At the time the Applicant Local Authority instigated protective measures on the [x] June 2025, the child, Betty had suffered, and was likely to suffer, significant harm and the harm, and likelihood of harm, was attributable to the care given to her, or likely to be given to her by ‘M’ and ‘F’ not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give to her. The Applicant Local Authority relies on events occurring on or before the [x] June 2025, that being the date on which it first intervened to protect the child (Re M (Minor) (Care

Order

Hair Strand Testing)[2024] EWCA Civ 498 and considered the results holistically in the context of all of the other evidence in this case. Order: Threshold Conditions) [1994] 2 AC 424). The Applicant Local Authority also relies on events occurring since that date which are capable of proving the state of affairs at the date of intervention (Re G (Care Proceedings: Threshold Conditions) [2001] 2 FLR 1111). The Court finds that the significant harm which Betty suffered and was likely to suffer is significant physical and emotional harm arising from the following facts: 1. Betty was the subject of a supervision order made on 03 February 2025. Within those proceedings the Court made findings including two incidents of physical violence perpetrated by ‘F’ towards ‘M’ [H3 – H5], and ‘M’ not being honest regarding their relationship. In addition, ‘F’ has a conviction for causing unnecessary suffering of a child – specifically [assaulting] his older son, Andrew, and served a period of imprisonment [H249; H4]. Betty continued to be exposed to the risk of significant physical and emotional harm due to ‘F’s violent behaviour and M’s continuing relationship with him [C54-C55], [C66-C67]. 2. ‘M’ was well aware of the risk ‘F’ posed [A10]. A safety plan [H203] was in place for ‘M’ not to have contact with ‘F’, and the parents were told in the Court judgment dated 03 February 2025 that it is their shared responsibility to adhere to the safety plan, and the consequences of failing to adhere to the safety plan would be exposing Betty to a risk of harm and possibly leading to further proceedings and Betty’s removal [H28]. Despite this, ‘M’ continued her relationship with ‘F’ including allowing him to sleep overnight in the home [C27], [A11]. ‘M’ denied any ongoing relationship with ‘F’ at the Court hearing on [x] June 2025, and only admitted to the relationship on that date after an invitation for her to provide her phone for inspection. This placed Betty at an unmanageable risk of physical and emotional harm by virtue of continuing the relationship. In addition to the findings in February 2025, the court finds the following facts:- 2(a) The parents’ relationship has featured physical and emotional abuse, volatile arguments and collusion, and the deceit the parents have willingly participated in and presented towards professionals has placed further stress upon their relationship causing the mother to self-report feeling suicidal and a ‘stress-head’, and the father to self-medicate with illegal drugs, notably cannabis to manage his mental health. All of this creates a toxic environment in which to care for a child and is likely to cause Betty significant physical and emotional harm; 2(b) Not found; 2(c) On [x] October 2025 ‘M’ and ‘F’ had a verbal argument which led to the police being called [G18 – G19]. 3. On [x] June 2025, ‘F’ physically assaulted his [x] year old brother, Charlie by pinning him against a door by the neck, squeezing his neck and bending his finger. [C6-C7], [C9], [C58] [G63 statement of Charlie]. ‘M’ was present in the property with Betty during this incident [A10]. ‘F’s violent behaviour poses a significant risk of physical harm to Betty and ‘M’. Witnessing her father’s violent behaviour is also likely to cause Betty to feel afraid which will have a negative impact on her emotional wellbeing. [C62-C63]. 4. ‘F’ uses cocaine and cannabis [E98]. ‘F’ delayed participating in hair strand testing when directed by the court and has sought to deny his drug use [B43]. In June 2025 when the local authority intervened to protect Betty, the father was using both cannabis and cocaine and Betty is likely to suffer significant and emotional harm as a consequence of his drug use because his use of drugs was a risk factor in his previous assault and conviction relating to his older son, Andrew. Betty is at risk of emotional and physical harm if she was to be cared for by her father under the influence of drugs. ENDS