SYP (A Child) (Extension of Supervision order and Child Arrangements Order), Re [2026] EWFC 240 (B)

IN THE FAMILY COURT

Case No NE25C50849

[2026] EWFC 240 (B)

Date 19 August 2026

SITTING AT NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE

Barras Bridge

Newcastle upon Tyne

NE1 8QF

Hearing, 27& 28 July 2026

Before

DISTRICT JUDGE DODSWORTH

Re SYP (A Child) (Extension of Supervision order and Child Arrangements Order)

B E T W E E N:

Between

GATESHEAD COUNCILApplicant

SAORespondent

EZERespondent

SYP (By her Children’s Guardian)Respondent

MS H MARSHALL (Counsel) appeared for Applicant

MS J RICHARDSON (Counsel) appeared for First Respondent

MS J HODGE (Solicitor) appeared for Second Respondent

MR T BANNISTER (Counsel) appeared for Third Respondent

JUDGMENT

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.

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.

DJ DODSWORTH:

Introduction

[1]This is a reservedjudgment in this case which came before me for a final hearing on 27 and 28 July 2026. The case concerns SYP who was born in April 2018 and is accordingly eight years’ old. SYP currently lives with her parents under shared care arrangements (live with / spend time orders) and has been the subject of a supervision order in favour of Gateshead Council since 20 January 2025 when a previous public law case concluded.

[2]The applicant in this case is Gateshead Council, represented by Ms Helen Marshall of counsel. SYP’s allocated social worker is Eve Hogarth and the team manager who gave evidence at the final hearing is Emily Radford.

[3]The first respondent is SYP’s mother, SAO, who is Chinese. She is represented by Ms Julie Richardson of counsel. As English is not SAO’s first language she has also had the assistance of an interpreter throughout these proceedings.

[4]The second respondent is SYP’s father, EZE. He is named on SYP’s birth certificate and therefore holds parental responsibility for her. He is represented by his solicitor Julie Hodge.

[5]The third respondent is SYP herself through her Children’s Guardian, Phil Larter of Cafcass. He was represented by Mr Thomas Bannister of counsel.

Application

[6]Application The local authority applied on 18 December 2025 to extend the supervision order which was made on 20 January 2025 for 12 months. On 16 January 2026 the supervision order was extended to the end of the final hearing, 28 July 2026. On 28 July 2026 I extended the supervision order for a further 12 months.

Issues

[7]Issues The issues in this case were:a. Should the supervision order be extended?

b. Should an order be made under section 91(14) of the Children Act 1989 (“the 1989 Act”) to require the first and second respondents to obtain permission from the court for any applications in relation to with whom SYP lived or what time she spent with her other parent? If so, for how long should the order remain in place?

c. Should a prohibited steps order restrict the first respondent’s ability to take SYP out of the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom?

d. What should SYP living arrangements look like? Should there be a live with/live with or live with/spend time order?

Supervision order

[8]By the time of closing submissions, the second respondent and the Guardian supported the local authority’s application for the extension of the supervision order for a period of 12 months. The first respondent did not oppose the extension of the supervision order for a period of 12 months. In those circumstances I extended the supervision until 11.59 pm on 28 July 2027 pursuant to paragraph 6 of Schedule 3 to the 1989 Act and do not need to say anything further about this issue.

Section 91(14) order

[9]Section 91(14) order The position in relation to whether an order should be made pursuant to section 91(14) of the 1989 Act was similar. The local authority, second respondent and Guardian all supported the making of such an order for a period of 2 years. The first respondent did not oppose the making of such an order. I need say no more about this issue than that I am perfectly satisfied that given the history of litigation in relation to SYP that she needs the protection of an order under section 91(14) of the 1989 Act for a period of 2 years to allow her a period of stability and for the day to day living arrangements that I will order to bed down. No party suggested that the criteria for the making of an order under section 91(14) of the 1989 Act were not met: they were plainly met and the local authority and Guardian’s evidence set out the emotional harm SYP has suffered as a result of her parents’ dysfunctional parenting relationship. It is from this harm that the section 91(14) order will protect her.

[10]During the currency of the section 91(14) order any applications for permission to issue a further application should be referred to me in the first instance if I am available.

[11]The parties’ positions in relation to SYP’s living arrangements and the need for a prohibited steps order There was no agreement as to what SYP’s living arrangements should look like or as to the continued necessity of a prohibited steps order restricting the first respondent’s ability to travel abroad with SYP.

[12]The local authority’s final position in relation to SYP’s living arrangements was set out in Ms Radford’s statement at pages C189-194 of the bundle prepared for the final hearing. In essence the local authority considered that the current term-time arrangements for SYP should continue and set out very detailed proposals for the arrangements in the school holidays and on special occasions such as Mothers’ Day, Fathers’ day, SYP’s birthday and festivals linked to SYP’s cultural heritage.

[13]The local authority was clear that the appropriate form of order was that she lives with the second respondent and spends time with the first respondent.

[14]The local authority also supported the continuation of the prohibited steps order that had been made in earlier private law proceedings, and which was expressed to last until further order of the court. Indeed, the local authority ultimately supported a tightening of the order to restrict the first respondent’s ability to take SYP out of the North East of England given recent concerns that had arisen when SYP was taken on a trip to Edinburgh without the second respondent’s consent.

[15]The first respondent’s proposals in relation to SYP’s living arrangements were set out in the position statement filed on her behalf for the final hearing. The first respondent’s proposals were that term-time arrangements continued as they were, but the holiday arrangements were somewhat simpler than the local authority’s and involved less handovers which had historically been a source of conflict between the parents.

[16]The first respondent sought a live with/live with order.

[17]The first respondent accepted that there were concerns about her taking SYP to China. These concerns related to the ability to effectively enforce any orders made by this court in China. Nonetheless the first respondent pointed to her extensive ties to this country and suggested that there was no real risk of SYP not being returned to the country if she travelled abroad with her. She opposed any further tightening of the existing order.

[18]The second respondent’s proposals in relation to SYP’s living arrangements were set out in the position statement filed on his behalf for the final hearing. Although he broadly supported the local authority’s proposals for holiday time and special occasions, he sought a variation to the term-time arrangements to allow him to spend more quality time with SYP at weekends. He sought an order that SYP lives with him and spends time with the first respondent which was the existing position.

[19]The second respondent supported the continuation of the prohibited steps order and agreed it should be tightened to prevent SYP’s removal from the North East of England without either his consent or a court order.

[20]The Guardian did not support a change to SYP’s term-time arrangements and supported the local authority’s proposals for holiday arrangements and the form of order. The Guardian sought a tightening of the order to restrict the first respondent’s ability to take SYP out of the North East of England and the extension to the prohibited steps order.

Law

[21]Law The law in relation to the disputed issues is largely set out in section 1 of the 1989 Act. SYP’s welfare is my paramount concern. My decisions should be informed by the welfare checklist, and I bear in mind the presumption that that the involvement of both the first and second respondents in SYP’s life will further her welfare.

[22]In relation to the appropriate form of order, whether a lives with/spend time with or live with/live with order best meets SYP’s needs, the issue was addressed by Poole J in AZ v BX

[2024] EWHC 1528 (Fam)

at paragraphs 76 to 80 of his judgment.

Evidence

[23]Evidence A bundle was prepared for the final hearing which I pre-read. I make clear that I have considered all the evidence in this case, both written and oral, when coming to my decisions on what best meets SYP’s welfare needs. I have not set out in this judgment what is contained in the bundle, to do so would not assist the parties, but I repeat that I have considered it.

Oral evidence

[24]Oral evidence Emily Radford Ms Radford gave evidence as the social work team leader who had supervised SYP’s child in need meetings and quality assured the local authority’s court documents.

[25]Ms Radford had reflected on the second respondent’s proposals and when she gave her evidence in chief she accepted that there was merit to SYP spending one weekends with each parent during term-time. Ms Radford was clear that it was vital to get SYP’s arrangements right at this point and to remove areas of ambiguity in the order as these had caused conflict between the parents in the past. From her perspective she had no particularly strong view what the arrangements should look like as long as the parents stuck to the arrangements: both were clearly capable of meeting SYP’s basic care needs when she was with them.

[26]Ms Radford was clear that a live with/spend time order best met SYP’s needs. She thought that an order in that form would clearly signal that one parent would have the lead in making arrangements in relation to medical issues and cited the first respondent’s reaction to being notified that SYP’s asthma inhaler dosage had been increased, where she sought to challenge the GP’s advice and the second respondent’s acceptance of that advice, as an example of a situation where if one parent had been clearly identified as the lead parent things would have worked better.

[27]Ms Radford was clear about her concerns relating to SYP’s emotional stability, identity and understanding of the world which resulted from the parents inability to compromise, communicate effectively or make joint decisions in SYP’s best interests.

[28]During cross-examination on behalf of the first respondent, Ms Radford explained her rationale for limiting the time SYP spent with her mother in the holidays to short blocks. The mother’s mental health was a concern, and SYP had not spent long periods, say a week, with her mother for some time. Periods of over 3 nights would need to be built up and tested: Ms Radford did not advocate jumping to periods of 2 weeks with each parent at this point. Ms Radford was concerned that the mother still did not prioritise SYP’s needs over her own needs and cited the mother’s wishes for SYP to return to her care, when SYP was suffering with chicken pox, instead of remaining with her father where she was settled, as an example of this.

[29]Ms Radford was questioned on behalf of the second respondent about a trip SYP had been taken on by her mother between the issues resolution hearing and the final hearing. The mother’s unilateral decision making in relation to taking SYP away meant that Ms Radford saw sense in the Guardian’s suggestion that the existing prohibited steps order should be extended. Ms Radford saw no reason why the second respondent could not play a part in promoting the Chinese aspects of SYP’s identity.

[30]Ms Radford was questioned on behalf of the Guardian about SYP’s reaction to being told about proposed changes to her time with each parent. Ms Radford accepted that SYP had become quiet and withdrawn when informed of the proposed changes and had said she did not like the plan and wanted things to remain as they were.

[31]I asked Ms Radford if, given the concerns about handovers, a simple week on/week off order might have any advantages. In principle Ms Radford thought it might have advantages as it would be clear, simple for the parties to understand, and easy for SYP to follow but was concerned as to how the weekly activities that SYP enjoyed would be continued.

[32]In re-examination Ms Radford rowed back from her initial support for the week on/week off proposal and thought that such a big change for SYP would be difficult to manage whilst there were still concerns about the first respondent’s ability to prioritise SYP’s needs over her own.

Phil Larter

[33]Phil Larter The Guardian gave evidence about his concerns over SYP’s recent trip to Edinburgh with her mother. He was concerned that the mother’s decision to take SYP to Edinburgh in response to a minor issue relating to a pick up was completely disproportionate and part of a pattern whereby the mother makes impulsive changes to arrangements which are not agreed. For that reason he thought the existing prohibited steps order should be tightened to prevent the mother removing SYP from the local area and considered that was a proportionate response to her actions.

[34]The Guardian did not support a week on/week off plan and was not confident the mother could care for SYP for up to 7 days at a time. The Guardian made clear that whilst he did not like the current arrangements, and would not have recommended them if they were not already in place, they were working for SYP and the parties.

[35]The Guardian, like Ms Radford, was clear that he would have been likely to support any arrangement that the parents were able to agree to: it was key that SYP’s arrangements were clear, predictable and that she would know what time she was spending with each parent.

[36]SAO The mother made clear that she would support a week on/ week off arrangement and had in fact always wanted this. She was also clear that she would support SYP undertaking activities that she normally did with her father if this arrangement was implemented.

[37]The mother was cross-examined about the trip to Edinburgh. Her evidence in this regard was difficult to follow. The mother tried to suggest that text messages between the parents were unclear and that she had to take SYP to Edinburgh as she did not think the father would be collecting her at the agreed handover time. She also said that she had no choice but to take her.

[38]Prior to the case being called into court on the second day of the final hearing, the mother spoke to the social worker in English and indicated that she was planning to take SYP and her other 2 non-subject children to China. Again, her evidence in relation to this was very troubling and it was difficult to understand to what degree the planning of the trip had got to.

[39]It was clear that the mother was very resistant to the father having any involvement with the Chinese school that SYP attends and did not see that him taking her there could be a way of supporting her dual heritage.

[40]The mother also made clear that she had concerns about the father’s ability to manage SYP if she was unwell. It was a striking part of her evidence that she struggled to identify any positive aspects of EZE as a parent beyond a concession that he loved SYP and would encourage her. In contrast, the mother listed numerous ways in which she supported SYP.

[41]EZE The father was unable to see much that the mother brought to SYP other than that she loved her, cooked for her and could keep a clean house. The cross-examination of him on behalf of the mother was limited to how communication between the parents might be improved: the father thought use of a parenting app for communication would be helpful.

Discussion and analysis

[42]Discussion and analysis It is clear that all parties consider a detailed order is required in this case to try and limit areas for disagreement as to what the order means. I agree but would observe that detailed orders have been put in place before and the parties have been unable to agree arrangements. The court cannot micro-manage each of their disputes.

[43]I was struck by the clear evidence that although both parents must share some degree of blame for the situation that SYP finds herself in, subject to 5 sets of proceedings – both private and public law proceedings- and still living with parents who cannot agree things in her best interests even after having a supervision order in place for 18 months, the degree of blame is not shared equally.

[44]The evidence of Joss Micklewright, a social worker, is instructive. She clearly sets out the ways in which the father has been prepared to work with professionals to move contact between SYP and her mother forward following the conclusion of the last set of public law proceedings. In contrast the mother’s engagement with the local authority did not provide reassurance that she was focussed on how to prioritise SYP’s needs. The mother was also difficult in relation to agreeing for SYP to visit Spain with her father: a trip that was plainly in her interests.

[45]I am quite clear from the mother’s evidence that she sees herself as the most important person in SYP’s life and that she does not really value the father’s role or accept the reality which is that the courts have consistently decided that SYP’s welfare is best met by living with her father.

[46]The mother makes unilateral decisions for SYP that impinge upon her time with her father: the trip to Edinburgh is a paradigm example of this. That it was done just before the final hearing of this matter is astonishing. At times it was suggested on her behalf that any confusion about this conversation with the social worker about going to China or her evidence in relation to the Edinburgh trip was due to translation issues – for example it was suggested that there was confusion in relation to the verb to book when used by the mother. I do not accept that suggestion. The mother, although having the assistance of an interpreter for these proceedings, has lived in this country for over 2 decades and can speak English to a good standard.

[47]SYP will continue to suffer emotional harm as long as both her parents, but particularly her mother, cannot or will not put her needs above their own. It is as simple as that in my view. The emotional harm she is suffering is the magnetic factor in the welfare checklist.

[48]SYP needs a clear order that sets out where she will be spending her time. The parties will need to stick to it.

[49]I have considered very carefully whether the term-time arrangements should stay as they are now. That was the local authority’s position, the mother’s position and the Guardian’s recommendation. In my judgment it is, however, not in SYP’s best interests that the arrangements continue unamended.

[50]Although I note that SYP herself does not want any change, her wishes and feelings are not determinative given her relatively young age. She has shown herself able to adapt to a variety of differing arrangements over the last 6 years of proceedings. She is resilient and provided it is made clear to her that the arrangements I am ordering will be in place for at least the next 2 year, I think she will adapt to them.

[51]I also consider it is important that the father has the opportunity to engage in activities that promote SYP’s dual heritage such as taking her to Chinese school on a Saturday. He also needs an opportunity to spend quality time with his daughter at a weekend.

[52]The number of term-time handovers needs to be limited as far as possible to reduce the risk of conflict between the parents.

[53]Those considerations outweigh the benefits of keeping the term-time arrangements as they are.

[54]Accordingly, during term time, SYP’s time with her mother will be reduced from the current 6 nights per fortnight to 4 nights per fortnight which will take place on alternate weeks from the end of school on a Thursday to return to school on a Monday morning.

[55]In relation to school holidays I think that the local authority’s proposals meet SYP’s needs save that handovers shall be at Gateshead Civic Centre rather than the local Co-operative store. Indeed, any handovers that do not take place at school should be at that venue.

[56]In relation to SYP’s birthday, she should be able to spend 2 hours with the parent at whose house she does not wake up if she would otherwise not see them that day.

[57]SYP should spend between 10.00 am and 5.00 pm with her mother on Mothers’ Day, and her father on Fathers’ Day, if she would not ordinarily be in that parent’s care.

[58]Both parents celebrate Christmas and the arrangements for Christmas and New Year should alternate annually and take precedence over the normal school holiday arrangements. In 2026 SYP shall spend from 12 noon on Christmas Eve to 12 noon on Boxing Day with her father and from 12 noon on New Year’s Eve to 12 noon on 2 January 2027 with her mother. I do not consider that it is SYP’s best interests to be moved on Christmas Day although I accept that a consequence of this is that she might only see her maternal half-siblings on Christmas day on alternate years.

[59]Chinese New Year is an important time for SYP and her mother. But it is also an important opportunity for the father to demonstrate to SYP that he respects and is willing to promote her Chinese heritage. I have no doubt that he will do so. Accordingly, the Chinese New year shall alternate annually and take precedence over the normal arrangements. So, in 2027 SYP shall spend from after school on 5 February (Chinese New Year’s Eve) to 5.00 pm on 7 February with her mother if she was not already due to be in her care and in 2028 SYP shall spend from after school on 25 January (Chinese New Year’s Eve) to 5.00 pm on 27 January with her father if she was not already due to be in his care.

[60]I do not consider that the parents’ birthdays are special occasions: SYP will remain in the care of the parent that she would ordinarily be in on those days.

[61]The order will have the usual freedom for the parents to agree different arrangements for SYP on either a temporary or permanent basis. Any such agreement should be in writing.

[62]SYP will spend significant time with each parent. Not equal time with each parent but she is still spending significant time with her mother. In those circumstances the starting point seems to me to be a live with/live with order. That form of order would have the following welfare advantages for SYP:a. It would make it more difficult for either parent to regard themselves as being in control of contact or to seek to control contact.

b. It would put the parents on an equal footing when seeking to make arrangements for SYP.

c. It would also put the parents on an equal footing with regard to holidays abroad.

d. A shared lives with order would signal to each parent that each was of value in SYP’s life, something which I think that the mother, and the father to a lesser extent, has lost sight of.

e. It would also signal to SYP that each parent has, in their capacity as parent, the same inherent importance in his life.

f. It would promote a sense of stability within the family: whatever the disagreements between the parents, the court had ordered that SYP shall live with both of them.

[63]However, in this case, it is clear that whatever the legal nuances of the form of order, there would also be advantages to an order that SYP lives with her father and spends time with her mother. That form of order would have the following welfare advantages for SYP:a. The order would reflect the reality of the situation on the ground whereby SYP’s primary residence is with her father.

b. It sends a clear message to the parents that the father should take the lead in making arrangements for SYP.

c. The mother is not able to misuse or weaponise the order;

d. It provides additional comfort to the father, and SYP, in circumstances where there are concerns about the mother removing SYP unilaterally.

[64]In terms of the form of order, I am clear that the advantages of a lives with her father and spends time with her mother order clearly outweigh the advantages of a lives with/lives with order. The order will be that SYP lives with her father and spends time with her mother as advocated for by the local authority, father and Guardian.

[65]I turn finally to the issue of the prohibited steps order. I am clear that the mother is still actively considering taking SYP to China. That is understandable as the mother has family there and wishes for SYP to meet them. But the mother’s decision making can be impetuous, and she has very little regard for how her actions will impact on the father and effect SYP’s emotional stability. It is not surprising that there is little trust between the parents with regard to the mother taking SYP abroad.

[66]I have reflected on whether the existing prohibited steps order ought to be widened to prevent the mother from removing SYP from the North East of England. I do not think that restricting SYP’s ability to travel within the United Kingdom with her mother addresses the legitimate concerns that have been raised in relation to the mother’s behaviour. When she took SYP on an unplanned trip to Edinburgh, it was not the destination that was the issue but the lack of communication with the father and other professionals. Tightening the geographical extent of the prohibited steps order is not, of itself, going to lead to better communication from the mother. I think the existing order, which restricts travel outside the United Kingdom, best meets SYP’s needs. It is, of course, not a bar to foreign travel as the mother can apply for an order permitting foreign travel or the father can consent to such travel. I note that the local authority proposes to carry out a risk assessment in relation to a trip to China prior to the supervision order expiring and that will, no doubt, inform the father’s approach to consenting to any travel requests.

[67]I think it would be helpful for the prohibited steps order to be included in the order that flows from this judgment so that the parties only have one order to refer to in relation to the arrangements for SYP.