Oxfordshire County Council v M & Ors [2026] EWFC 192 (B)

[2026] EWFC 192 (B)
IN THE FAMILY COURT SITTING AT OXFORD
HEARD 6 th July to 8 th July 2026
Before Her Honour Judge Owens
Oxfordshire County Council, ApplicantM, First RespondentF, Second RespondentA, Third Respondent, acting through their Children’s Guardian
Between
Oxfordshire County CouncilApplicantM, FirstRespondentF, SecondRespondentA, Third Respondent, acting through their Children’s GuardianRespondent for Applicant Local Authority: Mr Crispin, CounselFor M, First Respondent: Mr Hayden, CounselFor F, Second Respondent: Ms Whelan, CounselFor A, Third Respondent, acting through the Children’s Guardian, Jennifer Arnold: Ms Edwards, SolicitorThis judgment is being handed down in private on 8 th July 2026. It consists of 33 pages and has been signed and dated by the Judge. 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 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 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.INTRODUCTION, BACKGROUND AND EVIDENTIAL SUMMARYDate 2026-07-08
[1]This is a final hearing in public law proceedings. M and F are the parents of A and A is their first child together. M has three older children who were subject to care proceedings which concluded near the end of 2025. F also has other children from another relationship who have never lived with him.[2]A’s older maternal siblings first became known to the Local Authority in January 2020 because of concerns about lack of supervision and poor home conditions, referrals having been made by an individual and the ambulance service. The Local Authority involvement ceased in January 2021.[3]Those three older children were supported under early help again from March to November 2021, and then again from November 2022 to July 2023 due to concerns about M’s relationship with D’s father and risks posed by him to children.[4]In early July 2023 the older maternal siblings were placed on a Child in Need Plan, though M refused to agree to Local Authority involvement. An initial child protection conference (ICPC) was held in August 2023, which resulted in the children being placed on a Child Protection Plan under the category of neglect.[5]Despite significant support being provided, home conditions worsened. In August 2024 M referred herself to Turning Point in relation to excessive alcohol use. M accepted that she was drinking significant quantities of spirits. She struggled to engage with some aspects of the work with Turning Point and proceedings in respect of A’s three older siblings commenced in March 2025.[6]In April 2025 F was arrested for driving M’s car whilst intoxicated and without insurance. The following day, whilst intoxicated, F threatened to cause criminal damage to the paternal grandmother’s home and sent abusive messages to M, who was pregnant with A at the time. F was arrested and released on conditional bail not to contact M or the paternal grandmother and not to go to either of their houses.[7]In May 2025 A was born and proceedings were issued the next day . An interim care order (ICO) was made the same day, and the court endorsed an interim care plan for M and A to move to a residential unit for assessment. In May 2025 the proceedings for all four siblings were consolidated.[8]A Family Group Conference (FGC) was held in September 2025 but only M and one other person attended. The FGC identified extremely limited support for M from that other person. No family members or friends have been identified as willing and able to care for A.[9]In 2025 the residential assessment of M concluded negatively. The Local Authority plan was then one to find a sole foster placement for A, that interim care plan being endorsed by the Court in October 2025. Since then A has remained in foster care.[10]In November 2025 the proceedings were re-timetabled for what appears to have been a second time, at which point the proceedings were more than 26 weeks old. HHJ Sweeney preserved the listed Issues Resolution Hearing (IRH) in December 2025 but extended the timetable for filing of evidence in the run up to that hearing. At the IRH near the end of 2025 he made final orders for A’s siblings to live with kinship carers. The final care plan for A became one of adoption since there were no potential kinship carers for him. The proceedings for A were severed from those of his siblings, and HHJ Sweeney timetabled A’s proceedings to a new IRH before him on in April 2026 when final evidence and any placement order application for A would be before the Court.[11]At the April 2026 hearing, HHJ Sweeney timetabled A’s proceedings to a FH on 7th to 10th July 2026 inclusive before HHJ Vincent, with a Pre-Trial Review (PTR) before DJ Buckley-Clarke on 8th June 2026. He also granted an application by M to be further assessed by an ISW specifically to look at the parents’ ability to jointly care for A since they had reconciled by this point and were presenting as a couple. Valerie Wicks was the ISW instructed, and HHJ Sweeney permitted this on the basis that this would not delay the final hearing notwithstanding that both the Local Authority and Guardian argued that the further assessment had no reasonable prospect of a successful outcome. M’s solicitors were to be the lead in instructing the ISW. Very unfortunately the ISW failed to file her report as directed on 3rd June 2026, and failed to communicate with M’s solicitors, it seems. By the PTR in June 2026, she had been in contact and an extension for her to file the final report was granted since that would enable it to be considered by the Local Authority Agency Decision Maker (ADM) as originally planned in June 2026. Subsequently the ISW informed M’s solicitors that she had been signed off work from 1st June 2026 until 18th June 2026 but would file her report on that date. M’s solicitors therefore began the process of seeking a consent order to vary the date for filing of her report to 18th June 2026. On 22nd June 2026 M’s solicitors applied for an urgent Further Case Management Hearing (FCMH) because the ISW had not provided her report and had again failed to respond to communications from M’s solicitors. In June 2026 HHJ Liebrecht conducted the FCMH. The ISW had provided her report on the evening before, and it was duly filed and served. The report concluded that neither parent had the capacity to parent A in a consistent, safe and emotionally attuned manner. HHJ Liebrecht raised concerns at the size of the hearing bundle for the Final Hearing, now moved to be before me, and with a reduced time estimate of 3 days 6th to 8th July inclusive as a result of the PTR before DJ Buckley-Clarke. HHJ Liebrecht directed some reading time to be included in the hearing timetable and indicated that judgment may need to be reserved.[12]Unfortunately, a multi-day case listed before me and due to conclude on Friday 3rd July 2026 did not in fact conclude and this became clear on 2nd July 2026. Pressures on judicial diaries meant that reserving judgment in this case would mean significant delay. As a result, I brought forward the deadline for filing of a completed witness template to 9am on 3rd July 2026 to ascertain if it might be necessary to move this case to another date before another judge to avoid such a delay in judgment. A completed witness template was duly filed which allowed for reading time and the conclusion of evidence and submissions with time for judgment within the 3 days available. However, as I note below, the bundle itself was sub-optimal in terms of how it was structured and presented which added considerably to the reading time required and made navigation cumbersome.[13]In addition to the ISW assessment noted above, M was the subject of a psychological assessment by Dr Mann. His report dated July 2025 is at E96-E115. His opinion was that M had “a history of traumatic and abusive experiences that likely form a complex PTSD…M would benefit from long term therapy that is trauma-focused so that she can process past events and understand the impact this is [sic] had on her mental health and relationships” (E109). He concluded that “Given the risks posed towards the children due to M’s mental health and vulnerability I would not recommend that she solely care for the children whilst undergoing this [recommended therapeutic] work, particularly in the early phases as trauma therapy can initially destabilise (E109).[14]F was the subject of a community-based parenting assessment using the Parent Assess model. The report of that assessment is dated October 2025, completion of the assessment having been delayed due to lack of engagement from F (C625-C657). The outcome of the assessment was negative.[15]The final report of the residential assessment of M is dated October 2025 and is at C563-C624. The assessment concluded that M was generally able to meet A’s basic feeding, dressing and hygiene needs and had some positive bonding and interaction with him whilst in the unit. However, M was noted to struggle to maintain a consistently clean and tidy living environment, to establish and maintain routines, and to prioritise A’s needs over her own. It identified significant concerns about M’s unresolved trauma and mental health difficulties, her history of abusive relationships and in particular her volatile and emotionally detrimental relationship with F, which exposed A to the risk of domestic abuse. The assessment concluded that M was unable to solely care for A, she had not demonstrated sufficient and sustained change to address the safeguarding concerns and that A could not be safely returned to her sole care.[16]In this Final Hearing I have read the Bundle, though would note that the consolidation of proceedings and then unconsolidation of this case has led to the pagination going completely astray and unhelpful duplication of section headings, some evidence now appearing out of chronological order, and the resulting Bundle is confused, confusing and has been very difficult to navigate. It is not PD27A compliant. It was also not what HHJ Liebrecht intended by his case management directions of 26th June 2026 which seemed to aim to have a much-slimmed down bundle focusing on the relevant evidence for A and having directed the removal of entire sections relating to the older siblings.[17]I also heard oral evidence from the Allocated Social Worker (ASW), the ISW Valerie Wicks, M, F and the Guardian.

PARTIES’ POSITIONS

[18]The Local Authority seeks a final care order for A and endorsement by the Court of a care plan for A to be adopted, and has also therefore applied for a placement order for A.[19]M seeks for A to be returned to her care, opposing the final care plan for adoption. She argues that she has made changes to enable her to safely parent A and challenges the conclusions reached about her parenting capability.[20]F also opposes the final care plan for A and, whilst he is not currently living with M, is committed to reunifying with M and wants to care for A jointly with M.[21]The Guardian, who is a replacement Guardian allocated in late June this year after the author of the Final Report dated 27th March 2026 (JE1-JE18) left CAFCASS, has produced an addendum report dated 2nd July 2026 (JC66-JC75) and supports the Local Authority plan for A to be adopted.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

[22]The Court in public law proceedings must first consider whether the Local Authority has proved, on balance of probability, that, at the relevant time, A was suffering or was at risk of suffering significant harm as set out in s31 of the Children Act 1989 (CA 1989). The burden of proof is on the Local Authority and must be based on evidence (ABC (Children: Overlaying Child) [2020] EWFC 57). As set out by Lady Hale in B (A Child) [2013] UKSC 33 at para 193:
“when deciding whether the threshold is crossed the court should identify, as precisely as possible, the nature of the harm which is the child is suffering or likely to suffer…Significant harm is harm which is ‘considerable, noteworthy or important’”
. If threshold is proved, then the Court proceeds to consider whether the final care plans are in the welfare interests of the children, by reference to the welfare checklist contained in s1(3) of the CA 1989. Since there is a placement order application before the Court, the welfare checklist contained in s1(4) of the Adoption & Children Act 2002 (ACA) must also be applied.[23]The Court must have regard to the art 6 and 8 rights of A, M and F. Any interference with these rights must be necessary and proportionate (P, C and S v United Kingdom (2002) 35 EHRR 31).[24]The realistic options for A must be weighed in accordance with the considerations set out in Re B-S (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 1146. The granting of a care order with a care plan for adoption is an option of last resort requiring a high degree of justification to be made only in exceptional circumstances where nothing else will do (Re B (Care Proceedings: Appeal) [2013] 2 FLR, SC). However, the phrase ‘nothing else will do’ does not indicate some form of free-standing test and the Court must still conduct a proper welfare evaluation and proportionality check. Welfare for the purposes of the ACA includes consideration of the child’s welfare throughout his lifetime (Re W (Adoption: Approach to Long-Term Welfare) [2017] 2 FLR, CA). Applying the principles outlined in Re G (A Child) [2013] EWCA Civ 965, Re H-W [2022] UKSC 17 and Re J (Children) [2019] EWCA Civ 2300, the court must conduct a global, holistic welfare evaluation taking into account all the positives and negatives of each option and undertake a balancing exercise comparing each option. The proportionality evaluation requires a comparison of the welfare analysis for each option and a consideration of whether having regard to the positives and negatives of each realistic option, the proportionality of interference proposed by the Local Authority is justified (Surrey County Council v S [2014] EWCA Civ 601).[25]I have also borne in mind the principle set out by Hedley J in Re L (Care: Threshold Criteria) [2007] 1 FLR 2050, and endorsed in Re A, that society must be willing to tolerate diverse standards of parenting.[26]A placement order can only be granted where either the parents with parental responsibility consent, or the Court dispenses with consent pursuant to section 51(1) of the ACA.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

[27]The final threshold document is at JA21-JA23 and was found proved by the Court on 8th June 2026 based on the admissions made by M and F. Threshold is therefore not in issue for this final hearing. The final threshold findings, slightly tidied to remove typographical and grammatical errors, are appended to this judgment and I adopt them as my threshold findings in this case.[28]Welfare disposal is the issue in this case as I noted under the parties’ respective positions above.[29]In terms of the welfare checklists, the first relevant heading in both concerns A’s wishes and feelings in light of his age and understanding. He is too young to be able to articulate his wishes and feelings, however as the previous Guardian noted “it is likely that he would want to grow up within a family where he is safe, loved and his needs are consistently met” (JE12).[30]A’s physical, emotional and educational needs is the next relevant heading. There is no dispute that he needs to be safe, physically and emotionally, needs his basic care needs to be met including his emotional needs, and that he also needs his carer to ensure that his developmental and educational needs are met. He also has a need to understand his identity, particularly important for him if he were to be adopted but also important for him regardless of that given that he has older half siblings and a complicated family background on both maternal and paternal sides.[31]The likely effect on A of any change in his circumstances is the next relevant welfare checklist heading in the CA, in the ACA this looks at the likely effect on A throughout his life of having ceased to be a member of his original family and becoming an adopted person. Whatever the outcome of this final hearing, A will face a change to his current circumstances since he is currently in foster care. If he returns to the care of M, he will therefore be leaving carers with whom he has clearly bonded looking at the professional evidence. That would be a return to the care of his mother, though, and therefore a return to the parent who cared for him initially following his birth. If I endorse the final care plan for adoption and make a placement order, a search will commence for an adoptive placement and ultimately, he will move to the care of prospective adopter(s). Each would mean a loss of his relationship with the current foster carers which, at his young age, he will doubtless find hard to understand. The evidence of the Guardian to me in this hearing highlighted that the written evidence of the allocated social worker and that of the ISW demonstrated that A does not really have a close bond with his parents due to their inconsistent attendance at contact. She accepted when questioned by Mr Hayden for M that there was evidence of good quality contact when the parents did attend contact, and that it was clear that there was a bond with M and F both demonstrating that they clearly love A very much, but she did not accept that it was a close bond. Having looked at the evidence of the number of missed contact sessions by each parent, and taking into account what the Guardian told me about the impact on A of this as well as the evidence of the ISW at JC34 of the foster carer telling her that A has become more clingy to her in recent weeks, it is more likely than not that A doesn’t currently have a close bond with his parents, I find. If A were to return to the care of M and that placement was to break down, this would also compound the adverse impact on him of having had to move from the care of the foster carer, I note. It is also relevant that A has already had to cope with various other changes in his young life, moving to the residential unit with M for assessment, and then into foster care when the assessment concluded negatively. It is therefore important for A that he is not exposed to more changes than are necessary in his welfare interests, and therefore important (as both the allocated social Worker and Guardian told me) that he achieve permanency sooner than later given that he is a year old now.[32]I have already covered his age, sex and background in other aspects of this judgment so do not need to add anything else under this welfare checklist heading.[33]Any harm which A has suffered or is at risk of suffering is the next relevant heading, and one that links inextricably to the following heading of how capable M and F are of meeting his needs. M and F have both been assessed more than once in relation to their parenting capability as I noted earlier in this judgment. M was assessed in a residential unit, placement there having commenced in May 2025. The final report, dated October 2025 (C563-C624) concluded that:
“concerns remain regarding M’s capacity to meet A’s developmental needs adequately and consistently. Although she has been observed to meet A’s basic care needs, she has not demonstrated the ability to consistently prioritise his needs. Her personal issues continue to impact the way she cares for A. For this reason, I do not recommend M as the sole carer for A. M is not entirely ruled out as a potential main carer for A, as she has demonstrated some basic knowledge and skills in meeting his needs. However, before she can be considered as a sole carer, it is essential that she address her trauma, mental health, and self-esteem issues” (C566). Concerns about M’s ability to prioritise A at the unit related to her leaving A at the residence for extended periods on multiple occasions, despite being informed that this was inappropriate (C567, C602 and C610), and staff were also unable to contact her at points during these absences. M did say to me in her evidence that there were times when A was spending time with F while she was in the unit, that she did not know how long she was allowed to be out for and that she would contact the unit asking if she needed to come back only to be told that it was fine. It would appear from the evidence of the parenting assessment that the author attempted to discuss this issue and concerns about M’s relationship with F with M in September 2025, but M was unwilling to discuss the concerns: M, unfortunately, was not focusing on A’s needs or safety but rather spoke about how she needs to be there for F (C602). At C610 it is noted that “M has left A in the care of staff on numerous occasions and not returning as planned on an agreed visit to see friends. When I initially discussed this during the assessment, she mentioned that she had met friends…I made it clear to M that leaving A for several hours was not appropriate. Her response was that she was not in prison and that A was in safe hands…Despite several conversations about her staying out for extended periods without agreed consent from placement, M did not take this on board”
. At the same page in the assessment several instances of M leaving A in the placement between 11th June 2025 and 29th August 2025 are documented, not all of which seem to have been related to when A was due to see F despite her evidence to me. On balance, the written evidence of the placement is credible and consistent, and it does seem more likely than not that M did leave A for extended periods as was alleged. It is also consistent with the evidence, which M accepts, of her prioritising her relationship with F as that was clearly part of the complicated set of reasons that the placement identified leading to her not being able to put A’s needs first, including leaving him for prolonged periods in the care of placement staff. The ISW also concluded that both M and F “have consistently prioritized their own relationship over A’s emotional needs and exposed him to repeated incidents of parental verbal aggression” (JC43). It is therefore clear on the evidence before me that neither M nor F have been able to consistently prioritise A’s needs over their own relationship.[34]The parenting assessment of M by the residential unit also identified concerns about her ability to maintain a clean living environment (C567, C600). Whilst it noted that she was able to respond to prompts about this (C600), it took her considerable time to attend to it. The evidence of the ISW parenting assessor was that she was concerned that M may have “hidden her home from me so as to avoid a negative aspect to the assessment around poor housing conditions” (JC30), something that she confirmed in her oral evidence to me. Given the long history of concerns about poor housing conditions and M’s admission to the ISW that she felt overwhelmed by basic tasks of home when the older children were in her care (JC27), it is unfortunate that M did not allow the ISW to verify the progress that M said she had made. More worryingly, there is a direct link in this evidence between M’s mental health struggles and her inability to maintain home conditions and to ensure that the basic care needs of children in her care are met if she is overwhelmed. As the ISW noted, “without M’s mental and emotional health being well-managed there is a risk of overwhelm recurring when in the care of A” (JC27).[35]Dr Mann’s assessment of M also documented the close association between her poor mental health and failure to meet the needs of her children: “M has a history of possible ADHD, depression and anxiety. She described symptoms such as distractibility, demotivation, avoidance of going out, feeling overwhelmed, with a poor ability to manage stress. These symptoms have impacted on M’s ability to meet the children's needs such as a difficulty in keeping a clean and hygienic home environment. She admitted that when low in mood or when highly distractible it has been very difficult for her to maintain the home and that this has got into a poor state. Furthermore, M stated that when depressed she has difficulty in enforcing boundaries with the children and that they can take advantage and, in many ways, control her. This has contributed to a difficulty in ensuring the children have a good diet, often relying on takeaways, that they have consistent routines or that they attend school or appointments consistently. When acutely depressed, M stated that this has affected her ability to bond with her children. Such difficulties are exacerbated by any substance use and when mentally unwell this has significantly impacted on her ability to provide safe and consistent care for the children” (E108).[36]Both assessments of M identified concerns about her history of abusive relationships and the volatile and emotionally detrimental relationship with F. As noted in the residential unit assessment, this volatility was something that A was exposed to (C600 and C577). The unit noted that M “does not seem to recognise that her relationship with F is abusive, which could put A at risk of significant harm…my primary concern is M’s relationship with F…their relationship is volatile and has been so even before A’s birth. This suggests that A has been exposed to his parents’ conflict from before he was born until now, despite social care’s intervention to keep him safe. M denies domestic abuse; however, the dynamics between her and F clearly indicate an abusive relationship. Despite professionals’ concerns about the impact of their relationship on A’s wellbeing and safety, they continue to maintain it. A is likely to continue suffering emotional and psychological harm due to his parents’ volatile and abusive relationship” (C577-C578).[37]Concerns about the relationship between M and F and the risks that this posed for A were also identified by the ISW, who noted that M had a history of abusive relationships and lacked insight into this issue (JC18). She also noted that F had a very troubled background and “a history of domestic abuse in this and his previous relationship. F presents as the victim of abuse, however, appears unable or unwilling to view his own actions in his relationship with M as abusive” (JC25). She confirmed her view that the relationship dynamic between F and M involved domestic abuse when she gave me her oral evidence too. In her assessment she concluded that “both M and F have historical domestic abuse in their relationships and there is evidence of domestic abuse being a factor in their relationship with each other. In my opinion, the parental relationship is unstable and characterized by unpredictability and volatility. It is my view there is sufficient evidence that there is risk of future parental acrimony and were there to be parental verbal or physical aggression in the home with A present he may experience confusion, fear, anxiety and stress which could impact his emotional development” (JC36).[38]On the morning of the first day of this final hearing it became apparent that the parents may have separated and were no longer saying that they would be living together and seeking to look after A. It seems from their evidence to me that F took the decision to separate a couple of days ago but did not tell M until 6th July 2026. M’s evidence was that she and F were still hoping to co-parent A but, it seems, without F living in the same house as her. Perhaps understandably given the short notice from F about the change to their relationship, she was not clear about what might happen in their relationship in the long term, nor about the details of what the proposed co-parenting might look like for A. F’s evidence about the separation and what might happen in the future was, I am afraid, concerning. He was clear that he was viewing this as a temporary separation with a hope that they could “work through their problems” and then get back together. He did not seem to appreciate that this might be concerning given that they have separated and reconciled in the past as Mr Crispin for the Local Authority tried to explore with him. He was also unclear about the details of what he was proposing in terms of caring for A, saying that he would offer “physical and emotional help” to M. He accepted that he has never cared for a child on his own and that he would need to do some work to learn how to do this. I find that the parents may well have recently separated, but that this is not necessarily a permanent separation and they may well still reconcile given the evidence of F and the history of separation and reconciliation. The last-minute unilateral decision by F to separate is concerning evidence of poor communication and further relationship instability between them and is too recent to be reliably taken as anything other than a repeat of earlier patterns of apparent separation but either remaining in close contact or reconciling. When combined with the concerns about domestic abuse and volatility, even if they have separated they would still need to remain in contact with each other if they were to be co-parenting A as they propose, something that the ISW highlighted would still pose a risk of exposure to conflict for A when giving me her oral evidence.[39]The parenting assessment of F, dated October 2025, is in the bundle at C625-C655. He accepted that he had missed a number of sessions for that assessment. The conclusions of that assessment were that it “highlighted significant concerns regarding F’s capacity to provide safe and consistent care for A. Despite our clear efforts to facilitate his engagement; which has included appointment reminders, flexible arrangements for family time as well as offers for support, his attendance at both assessment sessions and family time was inconsistent and he was often late. This pattern, which was consistent with a previous Parent Assess that was completed in July 2024…demonstrates a continued lack of prioritization of A’s needs and minimal progress or change over the past year” (C628). The assessment went on to highlight concerns about his ability to form healthy relationships, maintain consistent routines, to recognise the risks posed by his own associations, his minimisation of the risks posed by his associations and concerning behaviours including substance misuse, mental health challenges, reckless decision making and ongoing conflict with M, as well as his lack of reliable engagement with professionals and family time. Overall it concluded that “the evidence points to a heightened risk of emotional and potential physical harm to A if placed in F’s care” (C626).[40]There are significant and long-standing concerns for both parents in relation to their mental health identified in the evidence before me, which both accept. Both M and F said that they have made changes to address this and the concerns about their parenting identified in the parenting assessments. As I have already found, the evidence of their separation is very recent and it may well be that they reconcile as they have done in the past. Neither of them has undertaken any work to help them better understand domestic abuse and avoid it in future. Both said that they were open to doing this work in their oral evidence to me (and M said this in her final statement at JC62). The written evidence shows that, as the residential unit noted at C618, M has had repeated involvement with domestic abuse services and some periods of engagement with them but outcomes have been limited. F told me in his oral evidence that he is willing to engage with a domestic abuse programme but has not yet done so. Neither has therefore even started any form of programme designed to help reduce the risks posed by domestic abuse. They did both say that they had been asking social workers for help and support and that they had not been offered anything, but it is documented in the parenting assessment of F that he was referred to a domestic abuse support service in early June 2025 but F did not engage (C647-C648) and, as I have noted, there are numerous references in the written evidence to M being referred to domestic support services and sometimes apparently engaging well but not improving her understanding of domestic abuse or ability to protect herself or any child in her care from domestic abuse.[41]Both parents also told me that they have taken steps to address the concerns about their mental health and emotional dysregulation. F has been to his GP and commenced a referral to a therapeutic service. He told me that he is waiting for the first telephone assessment following that referral. This must be a recent step because it is not in his last written statement dated 26th March 2026, though he did set out in that statement that he had been in contact with his GP to try to address his struggles with his mental health (JC119). Given the very long-standing concerns about his mental health, and the fact that he himself told me his mental health was “better but not fully sorted” with no medication yet prescribed for his ADHD and that he did not think that he “was ready to start caring for A now as I need to go back to my GP to get my medications sorted and start on mental health work”, there remains a very high risk of his mental health issues adversely affecting his ability to parent A to a good enough standard. When questioned by Mr Crispin F also told me that he thought he could do all the work and programmes he needed to do whilst there was a transition plan for A to come home. This sadly underestimates the amount of work that F clearly needs to do and also would mean that A remained in limbo with no permanency and a high risk that, despite F’s best intentions, he may struggle to engage with the work just as he has struggled to engage during these proceedings and there is a high likelihood that he would not therefore be able to make and sustain the necessary changes to improve his mental health.[42]M’s final evidence in both her written statement at JC61 and to me during this hearing was that she has now been diagnosed with ADHD, is on a waiting list for medication for that, and has engaged with therapeutic support. In answer to questions from Mr Crispin about the latter she explained that this therapeutic support was to help her understand and regulate her emotions better and that she had undertaken one of the planned 20 weekly sessions for this. It does not seem from this evidence as if this therapeutic input was the sort of long-term trauma based therapy that Dr Mann identified as necessary for her to address her poor mental health. At its highest, the evidence from M and F shows that they have taken some steps to address the issues about their mental health, but it is very early days and there is no clear resource identified for M to undertake the long-term trauma-based therapy that Dr Mann recommended. As the parenting assessments of each parent identify, the concerns about both their mental health and domestic abuse are persistent and long-standing and there is no evidence of them having effected the sort of sustained and meaningful change that is required to reduce the risks associated with their poor mental health and domestic abuse, I find. The risks to A from these aspects therefore remain significant and highly likely to recur if he were to be returned to the care of M, whether or not that would be with F attempting to co-parent. As the ISW confirmed in her evidence to me, if they have separated permanently this is a very recently separation and the risks of further domestic abuse increase at the point of separation rather than decrease. In any event, as I have noted earlier, it is not clear to me that they won’t simply reconcile again as they have in the past and co-parenting even if they have separated would still require them to remain in contact with each other about arrangements for A which would bring with it the risk of conflict and A being exposed to that conflict in a way that would clearly be harmful for him.[43]Historically, the concerns about both M and F have also included substance misuse, something that neither disputed. It is not in dispute that the testing of both M and F in these proceedings has confirmed negative results for M and no evidence of chronic excessive alcohol consumption for F during the period tested (December 2025 to April 2026). However, as the social work evidence to me showed, as well as that of M, concerns about F and alcohol don’t require him to necessarily consume excessive amounts of alcohol as it seems he can be adversely affected by relatively small amounts of alcohol, something that he didn’t deny when asked about this by Mr Crispin. It is also not in dispute that he suffered a bike accident a couple of weeks ago, was observed to be intoxicated at the time and accepts that he had consumed five pints prior to riding his bike. He did not accept that this was an excessive amount of alcohol to consume prior to riding a bike, nor that it would have contributed to the accident. Frankly, he was not credible about this. Five pints is a significant quantity for anyone to consume prior to riding a bike on the public highway and would be bound to impair his ability to assess and react to the inevitable dangers of riding a bike on the road, I find. He has also got a history of making extremely poor decisions when intoxicated as his acceptance of threshold demonstrates, including driving M’s vehicle, threatening criminal damage, and sending abusive messages. He also accepted when asked by Mr Crispin that he has not engaged with Turning Point since 2023. On balance, it seems as if the concerns about M’s misuse of alcohol may be less than in the past, as evidenced by her negative test results and past positive engagement with Turning Point. However, although F has similarly produced results that do not show chronic excessive alcohol consumption, the issues in relation to his misuse of alcohol don’t abate if he is only consuming moderate amounts or occasionally drinking to excess, I find, and he has not evidenced taking any steps that would mitigate this concern. I am also not sure that he really accepts that this is a concern from his evidence to me, and it is telling that Ms Whelan’s closing submissions to me sought to argue that there could be no objection to him consuming moderate amounts of alcohol, which ignores the point that the evidence shows even this causes issues for F’s behaviour and decision making.[44]M did say to me that she thought she could care for A and therefore make sure his basic care needs were met consistently with support, including professional support and support from her family. The issue of family support appears to have been extensively explored in the proceedings relating to her older children, culminating in kinship placements for them. It has also been considered in the proceedings for A, though, and the social work evidence shows that an FGC conducted in September 2025 only had one family member attend and resulted in the only support for M being for that family member to assist with childcare for pre-arranged appointments or to enable M to go shopping with sufficient notice (C542-C543). Although M told me in her evidence that she would have support from friends and family, she was not able to identify who that would be or the details of any support being offered. Professional support would be limited to announced or unannounced visits from social workers if A were to be placed with M under some form of public law order from what M was saying in her evidence and through her instructions to Mr Hayden. Both M and F also said that they were willing to undertake parenting courses to learn to parent A better. However, the concerns about M’s parenting identified in the parenting assessments are not that she doesn’t know how ensure that A’s basic needs are met, it is that she is unable to consistently apply this knowledge and, whilst she would benefit from undertaking courses to gain parenting knowledge, “she must first address her trauma and difficult lived experiences. As noted by Dr Mann, M’s trauma and personal issues are impacting her parenting. I am of the view that she may struggle to implement learning without first addressing these underlying challenges” (residential unit parenting assessment C614).[45]In the ACA welfare checklist, the Court also has to consider the relationship which A has with relatives, including the likelihood of any such relationship continuing and the value to him of its doing so, the ability and willingness of any of his relatives to provide him with a secure environment in which he can develop and otherwise meet his needs, the wishes and feelings of any of his relatives regarding him. If I endorse the final care plan for A and make a placement order, his relationship with his birth family will be severed legally so this aspect of the ACA welfare checklist is looking at whether it is realistic for A to be placed with his parents or another carer short of being adopted and also looks at the prospect of A maintaining relationships with his family or any significant others whether or not he is adopted. As I have already noted in this judgment, the evidence shows that A does not currently have a close bond with M and F, though he does have a bond and there is evidence of good interactions between him and his parents at times. He has met his maternal half siblings and there is no evidence of any concern from his contact with them so that can be supposed to indicate that he enjoys spending time with them. It is not disputed that M and F clearly love A very much too. Sadly for A, it is not in dispute that there are no other kinship or connected persons willing and able to care for him, largely because those who could have done this in theory are now caring for M’s older children.[46]M and F also clearly want to be able to look after A and do not want him to be adopted. However, given my findings above in relation to parenting capacity and risk of harm, they would not be able to provide him with a secure environment in which he can develop and otherwise meet his needs, and he would remain a high risk of significant harm from M and F if they were to be his carers (whether or not separated permanently from each other). The final care plan and its proposals for contact with A has been explored by both Mr Hayden and Ms Whelan with the social worker and Guardian. That final care plan proposes that A would have annual direct and annual indirect contact with his maternal half siblings, and that the possibility of annual letterbox contact with his paternal siblings (who he has never met) would be considered (JD3). In relation to contact with M and F, the final care plan proposes annual letterbox contact only.[47]The social worker’s evidence about why no direct contact with either parent was considered appropriate was that the parents’ attendance at contact had been inconsistent and that it would not be in A’s welfare interests for him to be taken to contact expecting it to happen only for the parents not to turn up. The Guardian agreed with this assessment. An agreed schedule of contact sessions between October 2025 and July 2026 was produced during this hearing. Ignoring sessions that did not take place because of circumstances beyond M and F’s control, such as staff sickness, hospital or other unavoidable appointment or extreme hot weather, this shows that M cancelled 19 of the 54 sessions planned. Of those 19 cancelled sessions, 9 were said to be due to illness on her part, one was because she and F were going on holiday, and 9 were cancelled by M without a reason being given. F cancelled 12 of his sessions, including the same one as M because they were going on holiday. Of the remaining sessions cancelled, 5 were due to illness on his part, one was because his car broke down en route, and 5 were either due to him not attending and not providing any reason or due to him not responding to messages to confirm attendance. Mr Crispin put to M that this showed a high level of illness on her part. M responded that she had been ill and this had been with a cough and cold but, when she was asked if she had been to her GP about this, she said that she had been and had been told that she needed to use her inhalers so I am not clear whether she had not been using them appropriately to manage her asthma in the first place or whether this was that she had some form of respiratory illness that exacerbated her asthma symptoms and she needed to increase her use to manage the symptoms. Either way, it does seem as though she and F have both missed a lot of contact sessions, sometimes without any explanation and, as the social worker told me, this does evidence their inability to organise themselves and prioritise A’s needs above their own. As I have also noted in this judgment, there is no evidence of them having made changes to the issues that would lead to that inability to organise and prioritise, so it does therefore seem more likely than not that they would continue to struggle to ensure that they attended at any direct contact post adoption no matter how much they clearly would want to. A’s welfare is my paramount concern and I have to bear in mind the social worker’s evidence and that of the Guardian about the likely adverse impact on A of being taken to contact only to find that his parents have not attended, something that is only likely to worsen as he grows older and more aware of their failings, I find. Whilst the Guardian acknowledged that she had not factored into her analysis the potential impact on A of realising that his maternal siblings were able to have direct contact with M and he may not, the Local Authority made clear after I had heard closing submissions, they are not opposed to the idea of direct contact being explored with any prospective adopters. This is something that the Family Finding team would explore if I grant the placement order. The evidence of the social worker who told me that she had spoken to the Family Finding team was that it would not take long to find prospective adopters for A. The Guardian also confirmed to me that A has no additional vulnerabilities or needs that would make him harder to place. The issue about requiring direct contact between A and his parents to be part of any post-adoption plan is not therefore that it would reduce the potential pool of prospective adopters to a level that might make adoption less likely, but more around whether it is in A’s welfare interests to require direct post adoption contact in circumstances where the parents may not be able to commit to attending that contact, I find. This outweighs any concerns about A becoming aware that he is treated differently to his siblings and, in any event, direct contact is not entirely ruled out as the Local Authority made clear.[48]Pulling all the various strands of the above findings together, the options for A are either a return to the care of his M, potentially with some of his care being provided by F at points, or for him to be placed for adoption. The first option would be the least draconian interference with the article 8 rights of A, M and F. It would return A to the care of his M who looked after him when he was first born. It would meet his identity needs directly since he would have first hand experience of his parents and wider maternal and potentially paternal families. However, it would expose him to an unmanageable risk of harm arising from the complex interplay of issues that affect both of his parents and compromise their ability to provide him with good enough care. He would be at risk of harm arising from their poorly managed mental health needs, their dysfunction individually and jointly, their volatile and abusive relationship and there would be a high risk of his basic care needs not being met when their parenting abilities were compromised by these aspects. I have considered carefully whether the risks posed by M and F to A if they were to care for him could be mitigated by some form of public order. This would bring with it professional scrutiny of his care by way of announced and/or unannounced visits as proposed by Mr Hayden on behalf of M. However, this would represent ongoing state intervention in A’s life and this may not be proportionate nor even effective in view of the risks that arise from his being cared for by M (and potentially by F). I am also concerned that there is considerable evidence in the bundle of M being unwilling or unable to follow professional advice (for example C690 Updated Parenting Assessment of M, JC11 ISW assessment of M), so it is likely that M may also continue to struggle with this and particularly until she has addressed her issues with the recommended therapeutic input. Dr Mann also concluded that “M’s tendency towards conflict in her relationships has also impacted on her relationship with professionals in which she has lost her temper. This is likely to limit her ability to access professional support that she needs in her parenting which would then have a negative impact on the children” (E108). He also noted that her ability to engage with recommended work may be compromised despite her willingness to make changes and engage in therapy to achieve this: “a potential obstacle would be M’s difficulty in managing her emotional states which can lead to conflict with professionals, past disengagement and this remains at risk. It is important that she engage fully and consistently in order to make and sustain change” (E109). Whilst it is very positive that M has started to engage with some therapeutic input for her emotional dysregulation, it is very early days for that work and I have not been provided with any credible explanation for why it has taken her so long to seek therapeutic input despite Dr Mann’s report being filed nearly a year ago. It is simply too early to be able to conclude that there is a reasonable prospect of M engaging fully and consistently as Dr Mann concluded she would need to to effect and sustain change.[49]F accepted in his evidence to me that he is not currently able to parent A because he has never parented any of his older children, though he does spend time with them. He would therefore not be able to have A in his care until he had completed some learning about parenting, as he very fairly accepted, which would also mean that the support he could offer M would not be caring for A until he had completed that learning. In turn, this would mean that M would be without support in caring for A if he were to be placed in her care, something that she herself accepted she needed when she was questioned by Mr Crispin.[50]Adoption would mean that his relationship with his birth family would be entirely severed legally, and his ongoing relationship with them would be extremely limited, potentially only through indirect letterbox contact for M and F if prospective adopters are not willing to facilitate direct contact. F would clearly struggle to engage with letterbox contact given his vulnerabilities as Ms Whelan pointed out, however there would be support for this from the post-adoption team as the social work evidence made clear. It would also mean that A would grow up knowing that he was the only one of his siblings not cared for within the family, something that any child is bound to question and wonder why they are different. However, it would also mean that A could be placed in a forever family who would be able to meet his needs for the rest of his childhood and beyond. He would become a member of any adoptive family legally and psychologically. It would ensure that his needs are met consistently and that he is not exposed to a risk of harm. His identity needs could be met by both the contact with his birth family proposed under the final care plan and by quality life story work, I find.

CONCLUSIONS

[51]Considering my findings above, the only realistic option remaining to achieve a stable and permanent placement for A is adoption. Placement with M, with or without F, would expose him to too great a risk of harm, and would be highly likely to break down as a result. The final care plan is therefore in his welfare interests and is one that I endorse accordingly. I will therefore grant a final care order to the Local Authority for A. As noted earlier, I have carefully looked at the issue of post-adoption contact and conclude that what is proposed is also in A’s welfare interests, noting that the Local Authority is not ruling out the possibility of some direct contact with M and F in future if prospective adopters are willing to consider this. It is also necessary for me to dispense with the consent of M and F to the making of a placement order because A’s welfare requires this, and I will therefore grant a placement order to the Local Authority in respect of A too.[52]I know that both M and F clearly love A and desperately wanted to care for him. I hope I have explained why this is not possible in A’s welfare interests, which must be my paramount concern. I am also aware that both M and F have a lot of work to do if they are going to address their various issues and that they may only just have started what are going to be very long journeys to complete that work. As Ms Whelan noted for F, they are young and it is possible that they may have other children. I hope that they continue to engage with the work that they have both told me that they have just started. APPENDIX FINAL THRESHOLD The Local Authority contends that at the relevant date, namely 13th May 2025, A was suffering and/or was likely to suffer significant harm, such harm being attributable to the care given or likely to be given to him if the order were not made, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give him. The Local Authority asserts that the harm suffered or likely to be suffered by A is in the category of physical harm, emotional harm and neglect. In satisfaction of the threshold test the Local Authority rely on the following evidence to establish its case: Emotional and physical harm - Domestic violence

FINAL THRESHOLD

[1]A is at risk of emotional and physical harm due to exposure to his parent's volatile and unregulated behaviour, toward each other and others, and the domestic abuse between them. For Example: i. On the 29 April 2025 F whilst intoxicated threatened to cause criminal damage to his mother’s home and sent abusive messages to M whilst she was 37 weeks pregnant. F was arrested with bail conditions not to attend M’s or his mother's home or contact either the paternal grandmother or M. ii. On the 30 January 2024 F sent messages to his brother threatening to smash up his television due to his brother owing father £20. iii. M was advised to not allow F to be in contact with her older children but this did happen on occasion contrary to advice when M was having Facetime calls with F. The children reported that they had seen F face to face.

Neglect and physical harm - Drug and alcohol use

[2]A is at risk of suffering physical harm and would be at risk of neglect and physical harm if remaining in his mother's care due to both his parents’ drug and alcohol habits. Drug and alcohol abuse render parents unable to provide consistent and safe care to their children: For example: i. M has used alcohol to excess as a coping mechanism. On the 14th of August 2024, M drank 6 litres of spirit over a period of 2 weeks [C198, C81, C158]. ii. On the 28th December 2023 F lost consciousness due to his level of intoxication and drug use. A child believed to be F's (later proved not to be) was put under police protection following a domestic incident due to F and his ex-partner being too intoxicated through alcohol and drugs to care for him. iii. On the 14th March 2025 F was intoxicated to an extent that required hospitalisation after causing damage to his face. [G37-39]. iv. On the 1st July 2024 following drinking F was found breaking things in his home, brandishing a metal pole and being verbally abusive to the ambulance crew who attended the incident. v. On the 28th April 2025 F drove a vehicle whilst intoxicated. F has been arrested for drink driving and causing criminal damage to the vehicle.[3]A is at risk of physical harm from his parents’ associations with high risk individuals related to those individuals' use and/or procurement of illicit drugs, for example: i. On the 9 April 2024 a third party who assaulted E earlier that week came to M's street [C75, C191]. ii. Following obtaining cannabis on the 16th July 2024 F was robbed and assaulted.

Emotional harm and neglect - Poor mental health

[4]A is at risk of emotional harm and neglect due to F's poor mental health which is exacerbated by his drug and alcohol use. i. On the 13th March 2025 F had a mental health episode. F was drinking alcohol which led to him falling over causing significant injuries to his left eyebrow and temple area. ii. On the 30th November 2024 F attended A & E due to having suicidal thoughts which he attributed to the use of drugs which he took unwillingly.

Neglect

[5]A is at risk of suffering neglect due to the lack of a safe and clean home environment and not having his needs met. i. The home has been untidy and cluttered with discarded food on the floor, as observed by professionals on the 18 September 2024 [E2], 17 and 31 October 2024[E3-4], 7 and 21 November 2024 [E5] and the 17 December 2024 [E6]. ii. A's siblings’ hygiene needs have not been met due to their mother failing to change their nappies when full, wearing inadequate or dirty clothes and having dirty bedding. A is at risk of not having his needs met to be kept clean and dry.[6]M has been unable to meet the needs of her older children who have been removed from her care due to suffering neglect, physical and emotional harm. A would be at risk of neglect, physical and emotional harm in his mother's care. For Example: i. On the 5 June 2024 B cut his foot after stepping on something sharp in the garden. ii. C and D have attended school very poorly presented, dirty in their person and in clothes that were too small, affecting their educational attainment and emotional health. On the 11 November 2024 C had a significant period of sporadic absence from school as he had no school shoes to wear. 8th June 2026 HHJ Eleanor Owens 8th July 2026