A Local Authority v Mother [2026] EWFC 211 (B)

IMPORTANT NOTICE This judgment was delivered in private. The judge has given leave for this version of the judgment to be published on condition that (irrespective of what is contained in the judgment) in any published version of the judgment the anonymity of the children and members of their family must be strictly preserved. All persons, including representatives of the media, must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so will be a contempt of court.This Transcript is Crown Copyright.  It may not be reproduced in whole or in part other than in accordance with relevant licence or with the express consent of the Authority.  All rights are reserved.Case No LV25C50542
IN THE FAMILY COURT AT LIVERPOOL
[2026] EWFC 211 (B)
Civil & Family Court
25 Vernon Street
Liverpool L2 2BX
Date of hearing: 2 July 2026
Start Time: 11:22 Finish Time: 11:54
Date ; 2 July 2026
Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE PARKER
Between
A LOCAL AUTHORITYApplicantMOTHERFirst RespondentFATHERSecond RespondentTHE CHILDREN by their Children’s GuardianRespondent
Ms MALLON for ApplicantMs VARDY for First RespondentMrs PRATT for Second RespondentMr ROGAN for Guardian
JUDGMENTDigital Transcription by Marten Walsh Cherer Ltd.,2 nd Floor, Quality House, 6-9 Quality Court, Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1HP.Telephone No: 020 7067 2900. DX 410 LDEEmail: info@martenwalshcherer.comWeb: www.martenwalshcherer.comDate 2026-07-02
[1]I am dealing with an application by the paternal grandparents, B and C, for a further viability assessment obviously with a view to them then moving on to a full assessment, and also for party status in these proceedings.[2]These proceedings concern two children who are my focus: D, who is now two years of age, and E, who is now one. They appear through the children’s guardian. She is not present today but has given full instructions to Mr Rogan.[3]The local authority is A, it is represented by Ms Mallon. The mother is F, she is present and she is represented by Ms Vardy. The father H is not present, he is in prison, but the prison authorities were unable to provide a CVP link for H to participate in these proceedings. He is represented by Mrs Pratt and having discovered that the prison could not facilitate a CVP, his solicitor indicated to the court that the proceedings today should continue on the basis that his legal team were able to make representations in respect of the grandparents’ applications. I have heard from and on behalf of all parties.[4]The grandparents, if I may refer to them as “the grandparents”, have set out what they say are their complaints about the original viability assessment that was carried out in respect of them in or about April of this year. In essence they set out; a) four factual inaccuracies b) omitted information. c) why they say they did not have a fair chance to take part, d) why the conclusions are not supported by the evidence, e) What we are asking the court to do.[5]They make an application for party status and for an independent viability assessment.[6]They did not actually set out that they wanted an assessment because they wanted to care for the children, a point that was taken by the children’s guardian, but that has been clarified today and they have made it clear that they do want to care for the children long term.[7]I have heard from both of the grandparents in support of their applications. They say that; a) they felt as though the questions that they were asked in the assessment were ambiguous. b) That the person putting the questions had the evidence, they had not seen it all, c) they felt that it was rushed. It was carried out over Teams 15 minutes before the grandfather had to go to work. d) A suggestion was made that the author of the report was lazy in not wanting to go through the traffic to see them in person.[8]They were asked questions about the number of the father’s arrests and having replied, they were told that there were numerous more examples of the father being arrested and they said that they were shocked. When they got the assessment, they saw that it was all about convictions going back 15 years. They said that they had been vigilant and followed social work procedures, that they had prevented any risk to the children from the father. The fact that H was found in the grandparents’ house, they say, was more a question of procedural failure. They say they both have an understanding of what the father has done in the past and what the implications are, but in standing by him as parents, they have tried to guide him in the correct way and to point out to him the consequences would get worse the more he does.[9]However, they say if he is not living with them, they cannot be responsible for him. They say their main concern is the children. They say:
“We’ve been told time and time again there is no risk to the children”
. That they have not seen anything to suggest that he is a risk to the children, they have just seen a happy family. That D is clearly intelligent and educated, even at the age of two, which is a sign that, taken with her happiness, there is no sign of her being at risk of abuse.[10]They said that they were made aware of the assessment of the father carried out by the psychologist back in December with the addendum in January, they became aware of that within a few days, and in fact the grandmother wanted to point out a number of inaccuracies in that report. Overall, they say that they are not happy with how their assessment process has been undertaken.[11]Ms Mallon on behalf of the local authority says that a key feature of this case is that the grandparents have breached a written agreement which provided that the father should not be having unsupervised contact with the children. That in fact he had been to their house when the children were there and stayed overnight, he has had overnight contact then. That therefore those breaches taking place in March and obviously post their awareness of the assessment of risk, the key issue in this case is that the grandparents just cannot be trusted. It is too big a risk now for them to be considered as carers and that in those circumstances it could not be said that they are realistic permanent carers for the children.[12]The grandparents did not intervene, they did not report the fact that the father had stayed there and therefore the lack of honesty and transparency are the key points here. Ms Mallon said she was sure that the grandparents would take issue with some of the matters in the viability assessment, but this is very firmly not a case that is based solely on accommodation, it is more fundamental than that. The negative viability assessment was carried out and properly so. In addition to that she prays in aid the delay that would be caused to seeking permanence for these children if the grandparents had their wish.[13]Ms Vardy on behalf of the mother supports the local authority’s position. The grandparents, she says, were aware of the psychological assessment. That it is clear that the father should not have been in the house. The mother accepted that there had been breaches that involved her and it was not just the father, indeed on occasions when it was just the mother and children, that was in breach of the written agreement. Any further assessment would therefore not change the outcome because of that risk flowing from the grandparents’ failure to act appropriately. In addition to that, the father’s probation licence required that he lived with the grandparents.[14]The mother’s position is that there should be no further delay and the local authority should file its final evidence. Ms Mallon says that could be filed today. In addition, that D is struggling with the current circumstances and desperately needs finality.[15]Mrs Pratt on behalf of the father put his submissions basically in support of the grandparents and fell in behind the grandparents accordingly.[16]Mr Rogan on behalf of the children’s guardian told me that the children’s guardian does not support further assessment now that she has been made aware that the grandparents do seek to care for the children. He said that D is now two, E one. The proceedings are at week 42. Further assessment would involve much more delay. We have got an IRH listed on 23 July, and in addition to that the local authority’s current planning, which is for a move to I, who is a maternal aunt, who has been fully positively assessed, is tentatively supported by the guardian but who wants to see the outcome of Panel on 8 and 9 July.[17]The viability assessment of the grandparents, Mr Rogan said, very properly sets out the balance in dealing with the strengths and vulnerabilities of the grandparents as carers. Those can be seen on pages G334 and G335 as follows:
“Strengths: B is the children’s paternal grandmother. Both she and C have been in the children’s lives since they were born, therefore they are well placed to support their ongoing identity needs. BC have been supporting Family Time arrangements, therefore have been present in the children’s lives up until they were placed into foster care, therefore they are familiar to the children and have a good pre-existing relationship with them. B is retired, she drives, therefore she is able to prioritise the needs of the children and support in transporting them to and from meetings and Family Time arrangements. B has worked as a paediatric nurse, foster carer and has adopted a child, therefore she has some knowledge around safeguarding and the demands of the role. Vulnerabilities: There is a level of uncertainty around their current property allowing children to live on the residential park”
. What the grandparents say about that, that children do live in the residential park. “Whilst B did not feel it would be a problem a definitive answer would be needed. The couple did state they would be willing to move but as yet where the children would live if placed in BC’s care is not known. It was evident from this discussion that both B and C have a close relationship with H and have always provided a high level of support to him in terms of helping with the children and providing him with somewhere to stay when needed. They are aware of his status as a sex offender and his crimes relating to adult women, but this appears to have no bearing on them when discussing his relationship with F and the risk he poses to women and children. They were more critical of F and maternal family members than H’s role in the presenting issues. When discussing H’s offences against children as young as eleven years, both C and B stated they were shocked and this was new information to them. Both appeared to have no knowledge of any child-related offences despite their close relationship with H and C attending a number of H’s trials. Though B and C know that he breached the contract of expectations put in place by the local authority despite understanding what the consequences of doing so could be, during this discussion they stated they tried to contact the police, EDT and the children’s social worker without success, so made the decision to allow contact between H and the children, managing the risk themselves. B has had a lengthy career as a paediatric nurse so has a good understanding around safeguarding and the impact of abuse on children. This appears at odds with decisions they have made in relation to allowing H to see the children when expressly told he was not to have contact with them. This calls into question her professional judgment and her ability to work in partnership with professionals. B shared she had previously been in a relationship where abuse was a feature. However, despite having this experience she did not appear to recognise the dynamics within F and H’s relationship. She reports she has asked F if H was being coercively controlling towards her, but F said no. The couple shared F lies a lot and it is her that holds the purse strings in the relationship, appearing to place blame with F, portraying H as the victim. They also stated that when H has been with them he tries to comply with the rules but F will call him constantly and become abusive towards him. This is worrying in terms of their being able to recognise H’s patterns of behaviour and the risk he poses to women and children, despite him being convicted of offences against women and children and on the Sex Offenders Register. The outcome of this assessment is negative. I could not recommend C and B progress to full assessment or be considered as foster carers for D and E due to the number of safeguarding concerns noted in the above Vulnerabilities section”.[18]Following receipt of the assessment, the grandparents appear to have instructed solicitors, Gamlins, who then wrote to the parties in the following terms:
“Dear All, We have had the opportunity of meeting with both of our clients in order to discuss with them the content of the viability assessment which has been prepared by the local authority. Whilst our clients do not accept the accuracy of the content of that report they have come to the very difficult decision that they do not find themselves in a position to challenge at this time. It is not intended, therefore, that any applications are to be submitted. In making this very difficult decision our clients have indicated very clearly that they want what is best for both children and certainly they are very …”
I think it should be “Alive” “… to the prospects that the court would be considering all options in respect of the children. They are deeply saddened but despite numerous attempts to contact the social worker to gain information as to the children’s welfare and wellbeing, they have been denied the courtesy of a return call. In the circumstances and given that they played an active part in the children’s lives for a significant portion of it, we wonder whether the local authority could provide our clients with information as to how the children are getting on. They have also indicated that in the event that the court does determine that the children should be made subject to placement orders, that they would wish to participate with Life Story Work for both of the children. Where possible and if there was any agreement in respect of the same they would like to have direct contact prior to the conclusion of proceedings. Can the local authority please confirm whether or not these are matters that have and will be considered and when such information could be provided?”[19]So in those circumstances, that was a very clear indication that the grandparents did not wish to challenge the assessment in respect of them as potential carers for the children and did not wish to pursue any role in the litigation other than making it clear that they would like to receive ongoing information about the children and also to be considered for Life Story Work and some further direct contact prior to the conclusion of the proceedings.[20]In court today the grandmother in fact informed me that was purely financially driven in the sense that they could not afford to pay solicitors and therefore that that was, as far as they were concerned, the end of the road. However, clearly that is not the case and the grandparents are here unrepresented today pursuing their own application.[21]The difficulties that they have are these, in my judgment. First of all we are presently at week 42. These children are already two and one. They have been involved in proceedings now for 42 weeks. If I were to accede to the grandparents’ application for further assessment, then as identified by Mr Rogan, there would be further months of delay in trying to achieve an outcome for these children. Indeed, friends, family or other connected carers in Cheshire and Merseyside take on average 13 weeks and indeed I have published a Practice Note to that effect. So already that would build in further delay of up to three months, just having another assessment.[22]Secondly, the indication that was given by their solicitors was that they did not wish to challenge the assessment and did not wish, therefore, to pursue a court order that resulted in them being the full time carers for the children. This is a different position today. Therefore, the court has a lack of confidence in their commitment to the process, simply because of that change in position, the position indicated by their solicitors and their position indicated today.[23]Thirdly, there is the evidence of breach of written agreements and the fact that the grandparents failed to take any or any proper action when it is clear that in breach of the written agreement that had been reached with the local authority, the father and indeed for that matter the mother were both having unsupervised contact with the children at their property. That was discovered not because the grandparents reported it, but because it was, as it were, found out.[24]The local authority, the children’s guardian and indeed the mother for that matter, are all united in the position that that effectively rules the grandparents out on the basis that they simply could not be trusted to properly safeguard the children if in their care to ensure that the father was not having unsupervised ongoing contact. That the nature and magnitude of risk in this case is really barn door in this case. The father is indeed a prolific offender and the grandparents knew as recently as December of last year or January this year, or at least within a few days of receiving the reports, or at least being told of the contents of the reports, that he had been assessed by a psychologist as a risk to children. In those circumstances, when the breaches took place it is clear that the parents were aware that professional assessment of the father was that he posed a risk of sexual abuse to the children.[25]In those circumstances, it is difficult to understand why it was that the grandparents were prepared to allow that situation to happen, and particularly, I am bound to say, with the grandmother’s training as a paediatric nurse. She will have been undoubtedly well aware of the need for safeguarding and the procedure for safeguarding, but that for reasons that will be best known to the grandparents, it was not followed.[26]I have to say also, and this was a point made by Mr Rogan, that I have been somewhat concerned by what I have heard today, particularly from the grandmother, about how there is some reassurance to be taken, these are my words, not hers, from the presentation of the children, particularly D, both in terms of her intellect and also the happiness of the children and her observations of family life that involved Mother, Father and the children. That in those circumstances there was no evidence of risk. Of course, that is a very dangerous position to take when one is dealing with a risk like child sexual abuse, because very often outward appearances are designed to be entirely deceiving. The simple fact that a child may be happy at the ages of one or two cannot be taken in any way to be a reassurance of safety. I put it no higher than that but I was surprised that even now the grandparents through the grandmother were suggesting that.[27]Of course, this is a case management decision for the court to take and in those circumstances I have to have regard to the overriding objective in the Family Procedure Rules, rule 1.1. These rules are a new procedural code; well, they are not so new any more, with the overriding objective of enabling a court to deal with cases justly, having regard to any welfare issues involved. Then there is a partial definition of “Justice” in sub-paragraph (2): (a) “Dealing with a case justly includes so far as is practicable ensuring that it is dealt with expeditiously and fairly”. Well, in these circumstances, if I were to accede to the grandparents’ application then that would clearly drive a coach and horses through expedition and these children would be left with months of delay before they could achieve a permanent outcome, and they would be left in potentially temporary foster care placement.[28]In terms of fairness, clearly the grandparents have been the subject of a viability assessment. They feel that the process was not fair. The local authority, the mother and the children’s guardian feel that it was fair and I will assume that the father also joins with the grandparents in suggesting that it was not fair. (b) “Dealing with the case in ways which are proportionate to the nature, importance and complexity of the issues”, well, in this case if I were to direct a further assessment of the grandparents, then it would be said by the local authority, Mother and the children’s guardian that that would be a disproportionate exercise because the grandparents could not be said to be runners in this case. All argue that because of the breach of the written agreement the grandparents have effectively ruled themselves out by their own actions. However, in any event the viability assessment has been carried out properly and in a balanced way. Of course, the grandparents and the father for that matter will suggest that a proportionate step would be to have a further assessment.[29]The issues in this case are not particularly complex. Sadly and all too often the court is dealing with cases where children are at risk of sexual abuse. However, it is clearly important, it is clear that placement for adoption is not off the menu of possible orders in this case, even though the local authority are clearly considering a kinship placement.[30]c) “Ensuring that the parties are on an equal footing”, well, all parties have made submissions today about the application. Whilst the grandparents are not legally represented, I am satisfied that they have had an opportunity to write and say what they want to say in support of the application.[31]d): “Saving expense”. Clearly, if I accede to the grandparents’ application it will incur expense, not save it. e)“Allotting to it an appropriate share of the court’s resources whilst taking into account the need to allot resources to other cases”, again if I accede to the application the IRH would have to be vacated and this case would need more time and would take longer, thereby soaking up more of the court’s resources to the detriment of other cases.[32]In addition to that, I have to bear in mind delay. That is enshrined in the Children Act both in terms of section 1, that delay is likely to prejudice the welfare of the children and clearly it would in this case. They have already been waiting far too long for an outcome. Also in section 32 where the court is placed under a statutory duty to conclude these cases within 26 weeks. We are already well beyond 26 weeks, but it is not a binary question. One does not say, well, we will be on 26 weeks so now it is open season. That simply means that the court must redouble its efforts to get the cases heard as quickly as possible because already there is a delay that is inimical to the welfare interests of the children.[33]Overall in this case I have come to the judgment that I do not consider that the grandparents could be said to be realistic long term carers for the children, for the reasons that have been already set out by the local authority, by the mother and the children’s guardian. First of all the breach of the written agreement in a case where there is clearly a serious risk of sexual abuse for these children posed by their father, evidenced through his prolific offending. To have breached a written agreement in the way that it was is unacceptable and inexcusable, I am afraid, particularly with the grandmother’s professional training.[34]In addition to that delay, the court is being asked to direct further assessments at week 42. Again, that is just inimical to the children’s welfare in this case, particularly where in my judgment the grandparents are not runners for the purposes of potential friends, family or other connected care assessments. I add to that the apparent change in position from the grandparents. As recently as April they were saying that they were not pursuing care of the children and any further participation in the proceedings other than that which I have set out. To now say that they wish to pursue, with what in my judgment is an unconvincing explanation that they thought that they could not do it simply because they could not pay a solicitor, I am afraid I find that unpersuasive and in any event is simply not good enough to justify the delay in this case, which of course directly bears upon the children’s welfare.[35]In addition to that, on the basis of the viability assessment, when I set that against the written challenge from the grandparents, I am not sufficiently satisfied that the assessment is fundamentally flawed in such a way that I should direct another assessment. In those circumstances, even if I were to grant the grandparents party status, I would not be satisfied that it is necessary for me to direct a further assessment of the grandparents to enable me to deal with the proceedings justly. They would be left, therefore, simply challenging the current assessment. However, in any event, on the basis of the information before me that is unchallenged, I am not satisfied that the grandparents are a realistic option for the court and in those circumstances their applications are refused. __________________________