The Local Authority v The Mother & Ors [2026] EWFC 251 (B)
IN THE FAMILY COURT AT CHESTER & CREWEIN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN ACT 1989AND IN THE MATTER OF “STORM”[2026] EWFC 251 (B)BEFORE HER HONOUR JUDGE HESFORD
Between
THE LOCAL AUTHORITYApplicantTHE MOTHERRespondentTHE FATHERRespondent“STORM”(BY HER CHILDREN’S GUARDIAN)3rd Respondent______________________________JUDGMENT27 AUGUST 2026______________________________Mr Hurley for Applicant Local AuthorityMr Thomas for MotherMs Maguire for FatherMr Dimelow for Child via her GuardianPursuant to the inherent jurisdiction and/or rule 12.73 FPR 2010, the child, parents, siblings and wider family members shall not be identified. The names of the child, parents, siblings and any person likely to identify them have been anonymised. Any person publishing this judgment must preserve that anonymity.HHJ Hesford :Date 2026-08-27
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
[1]This matter concerns Storm who is now aged nine months. Since her discharge from hospital following her birth, Storm has been accommodated in local authority foster care pursuant to an Interim Care Order made in late 2025. She has remained in the same foster placement throughout these proceedings.[2]The Applicant Local Authority seeks care and placement orders authorising Storm’s placement for adoption. The mother and father opposes the plan of adoption and seeks rehabilitation of Storm to their respective care. The father initially contended that long term foster care should instead be pursued whilst he underwent further assessment. The Children’s Guardian supports the local authority’s applications and its care plan for adoption. The threshold criteria findings were established on 9 January 2026 and were not disputed at final hearing.[3]These proceedings arise against the background of extensive previous involvement between this family and children’s services. Storm has two older full siblings, O and C, who were the subject of earlier care proceedings. In those proceedings the court found that O had suffered a non-accidental shaking type injury several years previously and that each parent fell within the pool of possible perpetrators. The court further found that neither parent had provided a candid account of events and approved care and placement orders for both children, who were subsequently adopted.[4]Following notification of the mother’s pregnancy with Storm, the local authority undertook pre-birth assessment work. Concerns identified included the findings from the previous proceedings, the parents’ continued failure to accept responsibility for O’s injuries, domestic abuse within the parents’ relationship, mental health difficulties, substance misuse concerns, and a lack of insight into safeguarding risks. Care proceedings were issued on the day of Storm’s birth.[5]During these proceedings the court has considered psychological, cognitive and parenting assessments of the parents. The local authority and the Guardian rely upon that evidence in support of their case that neither parent can safely care for Storm within her timescales and that adoption is the only realistic permanency option. The mother and father both contend that their recent separation represents a significant change of circumstances and consider that they are now able to care for Storm alone or alternatively they seek further parenting assessments.[6]At a late stage in the proceedings, the parents separated. Thereafter each parent made allegations against the other and each suggested that the other was responsible for O's injuries. At the IRH, HHJ Pates refused the mother's applications for an independent social work assessment and for Dr Alwin to be called to give oral evidence. Although HHJ Pates was the allocated judge (per the previous proceedings), the matter was listed before myself to avoid delay. The father filed an application for further assessment a few days before this final hearing.[7]Since the previous proceedings, both parents have been diagnosed with neurodevelopmental conditions. Dr Allen's updated cognitive assessments concluded that both parents function within the borderline to low-average range of cognitive ability. The parenting and psychological assessments were undertaken with those difficulties and the parents' neurodiversity in mind and appropriate adjustments were made throughout the proceedings.Intermediaries were not necessary. During the progress of these proceedings, the parents made a number of applications for additional assessments, including residential, Resolutions and independent social worker assessments. Each application was determined on its merits and refused. No challenge was made to those decisions. The applications were, however, renewed at the final hearing. All parties thereafter made their closing submissions.
EVIDENTIAL SUMMARY
[8]EVIDENTIAL SUMMARY I have received and read the bundle of papers and I heard oral evidence from the assessing social worker, the previously allocated social worker, P, the Guardian, and from each parent. All witnesses were doing their best to assist the court. Where there was conflict in the evidence, I have resolved those matters in accordance with my decisions below.[9]Professor Nathan identified within the previous proceedings that the mother has a history of significant psychological vulnerability, including symptoms of PTSD, panic disorder and features of borderline personality disorder (EUPD). He concluded that periods of emotional distress increase her risk of hopelessness, self-harm and suicidal ideation, together with emotional volatility and difficulties regulating her responses to stress.[10]The parenting assessment completed was undertaken using the Parent Assess model and took account of the parents’ cognitive difficulties and neurodiversity. The assessor reviewed extensive background material, observed family time, undertook home visits and conducted a series of structured assessment sessions. Whilst both parents engaged positively, demonstrated warmth towards Storm and expressed a strong commitment to caring for her, the assessment focused on whether they could provide safe and consistent care independently.[11]The assessment found that although both parents possessed some theoretical knowledge of childcare and development, they struggled to retain and apply that knowledge consistently in practice. During contact they frequently required prompting to recognise Storm’s cues, respond appropriately to her needs, engage in age-appropriate play and provide safe care. Although they responded positively to guidance, the learning was not consistently retained, with the same concerns recurring, particularly in relation to recognising Storm's cues and avoiding overstimulation. The assessor concluded that they remained unable to meet Storm’s basic, developmental and emotional needs without significant professional support.[12]The assessment also highlighted longstanding safeguarding concerns. Neither parent had developed meaningful insight into the non-accidental injuries suffered by their son O, nor were they able to explain how similar harm could be prevented in the future. Concerns were also identified regarding domestic abuse within the relationship, emotional regulation, mental health difficulties, executive functioning, financial instability, and, in the father’s case, substance misuse.[13]Further concerns arose from the condition of the family home, which was found on several occasions to be cluttered, unhygienic and unsuitable for an infant. Although improvements were made, they were viewed as reactive and not evidence of sustained change. The assessor was also concerned about the parents’ daily living skills, household management and the limited nature of their support networks.[14]The assessor’s overall conclusion was that Storm could not safely be returned to her parents’ care. Whilst recognising their love for Storm and their positive engagement with professionals, she found no evidence of sustained change sufficient to mitigate the risks identified. Reunification would require extensive work across multiple areas together with evidence that any progress could be maintained over time. The assessor therefore concluded that reunification was not a realistic option within Storm’s timescales.[15]Dr Alwin undertook a psychological assessment of both parents, including clinical interviews, psychometric testing and consideration of the extensive background material from the previous and current proceedings. He concluded that both parents had experienced significant adverse childhood experiences, emotional difficulties and unstable attachment relationships which continued to influence their current functioning. Whilst both parents presented as believing that the neurological diagnoses had enabled them to understand themselves better and achieve greater stability, Dr Alwin considered that both had "foreclosed" on the view that neurodiversity explained their previous difficulties and had not demonstrated a clear process of change showing how earlier concerns had been addressed and resolved.[16]A central concern throughout the report was the parents' continued denial of responsibility for the injuries sustained by O and their inability to identify how those injuries occurred or how similar risks could be prevented in the future. Dr Alwin considered that both parents lacked sufficient insight into safeguarding and risk and they remained sceptical that either parent had harmed O. He concluded that this significantly undermined their ability to protect Storm because neither genuinely viewed the other as a potential source of risk. He also remained concerned that the relationship continued to display features of the co-dependent and emotionally enmeshed dynamic identified during the 2019 proceedings, notwithstanding periods of improved stability since 2024.[17]Dr Alwin further concluded that both parents tended to minimise or under-report difficulties, particularly in relation to mental health, relationship issues and emotional vulnerability. Whilst he acknowledged improvements in the relationship, reduced domestic abuse incidents and greater stability during the preceding year, he considered that the evidence did not demonstrate a sustained process of change. Both parents remained vulnerable to emotional dysregulation during periods of stress and continued to underestimate the impact that their neurodiversity and personal histories could have upon their parenting. He also expressed concerns about their ability to work openly and honestly with professionals because they maintained the view that the concerns arising from the previous proceedings had effectively been resolved.[18]In his responses to the written questions, Dr Alwin maintained his conclusions. He confirmed that appropriate adjustments had been made to accommodate the parents' cognitive profiles and remained of the view that, notwithstanding some positive changes, neither parent had demonstrated sufficient safeguarding insight, behavioural change or understanding of risk to permit safe long-term care of Storm.
THE PARTIES POSITIONS
[19]THE PARTIES POSITIONS The Local Authority sought a final care order for Storm and endorsement by the Court of a care plan for Storm to be adopted and also therefore applied for a placement order for her.[20]The mother relied upon submissions and did not challenge the evidence. Mother sought for Storm to be returned to her care, opposing the final care plan for adoption. She argued that she has made changes to enable her to safely parent Storm now and challenged the conclusions reached about her parenting capability. If Storm was adopted she sought contact at least four times each year. The mother had prepared a letter for the court which has been carefully considered.[21]Father challenged the evidence. Father also opposed the final care plan for Storm and wanted rehabilitation or for her to remain in foster care whilst he underwent reassessment. His evidence was not clear as to his preferred option and indeed changed during questioning. He submitted he has made sufficient changes to justify this. If Storm was adopted he also sought contact at least four times each year.[22]The Guardian supported the Local Authority plan for Storm to be adopted.
FATHERS APPLICATION FOR FURTHER ASSESSMENT
[23]FATHERS APPLICATION FOR FURTHER ASSESSMENT On 21 August 2026, the father issued an application pursuant to Part 25 FPR 2010 seeking permission to instruct the previous assessing social worker, the author of the Parent Assess assessment already before the court, to undertake an addendum parenting assessment. The father's application was not advanced on the basis that he is presently able to care for Storm but rather that he acknowledged that further work would be required before rehabilitation could be contemplated. His case is that a number of developments have occurred since completion of the Parent Assess assessment, namely the breakdown of the parents' relationship, his increasing acceptance that the mother may pose a safeguarding risk, his engagement with domestic abuse work, his reported cessation of cannabis use, and the positive observations of his care of Storm during family time. He submitted that these matters justified the provision of the teaching identified within the Parent Assess assessment and a subsequent reassessment of his parenting capacity. I have carefully considered each of those submissions.[24]The court may only permit expert evidence where such evidence is necessary to assist the court to resolve the proceedings justly. I am not satisfied that the proposed assessment meets that test. The court already has the benefit of detailed parenting, cognitive and psychological evidence. The parenting assessment is comprehensive and identifies with clarity both the father's strengths and the significant concerns which prevent Storm being placed in his care. There is no material evidential gap requiring further expert evidence. I accept that the father can properly point to a number of developments since completion of the Parent Assess assessment. Those matters include the separation of the parties, his participation in domestic abuse related work, his intention to engage with substance misuse services, the positive observations made during family time, and his contention that he has developed greater insight into the risks presented by the mother. I have considered all of those matters carefully and treat them as relevant developments rather than dismissing them as immaterial. In particular, the evidence from family time demonstrates a warm and affectionate relationship with Storm. The records show occasions on which he appropriately met Storm's immediate care needs, including feeding, nappy changing, responding to her routines, and engaging positively with her. Some records go further and note his ability to learn when provided with support and guidance. I accept that these are genuine strengths and that they demonstrate both commitment to Storm and a capacity to benefit from assistance provided by professionals.[25]I also accept that the father's current position differs from that adopted earlier in the proceedings. He now accepts that the relationship with the mother was characterised by domestic abuse, acknowledges that he failed previously to be sufficiently open with professionals about aspects of the relationship, and contends that the mother may have been responsible for the injuries suffered by O. I treat those matters as relevant developments in his thinking. However, they do not amount to demonstrated safeguarding insight sufficient to undermine the conclusions of the professional evidence. The central difficulty remains that the father cannot adequately explain how O came to suffer those injuries, why he failed to identify and act upon risk at the time, or how he would reliably protect Storm from comparable risks in future.[26]The application is, in substance, a request for further time to enable the father to undertake additional work and thereafter be reassessed. The difficulty is that there is presently no evidential basis upon which the court could conclude that such work would be completed within timescales compatible with Storm's welfare or that it would be likely to alter the fundamental conclusions already reached by the professional witnesses. The concerns identified within the existing evidence are longstanding, multifaceted and cumulative. They extend well beyond the issues raised regarding contact guidance or parental separation and include safeguarding insight, emotional regulation, executive functioning, and the ability consistently to apply learning in practice.[27]I have also considered the evidence filed by the Local Authority in response to the issue raised at the IRH regarding what further work might be undertaken with the father. Whilst that evidence identifies areas in which the father has recently taken some steps, including self-referring to substance misuse services and completing an online domestic abuse course, the Local Authority's position is that the concerns identified within the Parent Assess assessment remain substantially unresolved. The evidence does not demonstrate sustained abstinence from substances, verified change in relation to domestic abuse concerns, established emotional stability, independent parenting capacity or sufficiently developed safeguarding insight. Importantly, the professional opinion remains that these are not matters capable simply of being addressed through a short programme of teaching work but would require change to be demonstrated and sustained over time.[28]I have considered the father's submission that the local authority has not undertaken all of the teaching and support work identified within the Parent Assess assessment and that it is therefore premature to conclude that he cannot parent Storm. However, the assessment identified multiple and interconnected concerns requiring sustained change over time, and I am not satisfied that there is any evidential basis for concluding that further work would produce and demonstrate sufficient change within Storm's timescales.[29]I also bear firmly in mind that Storm is only nine months old and has spent her entire life in foster care. Any further assessment would delay permanence by many months, potentially in excess of six months, without any realistic prospect of generating evidence capable of altering the outcome. Neither the use of an alternative assessor nor a Resolutions-style assessment would materially reduce that timescale. In my judgment, such delay would be contrary to Storm's welfare.[30]Accordingly, I am satisfied that the proposed assessment is neither necessary nor proportionate. Whilst I have weighed the father's recent developments and his wish to demonstrate further change, there is no evidential basis for concluding that additional work and reassessment would achieve outcomes within timescales compatible with Storm's welfare. The application is therefore refused.
THRESHOLD
[31]THRESHOLD Threshold was established by the court at a hearing on 9 January 2026 and is recorded in the order made on that date. A copy of the threshold findings is attached to this judgment as Appendix 1. In summary, the threshold findings establish that:• Storm has two older full siblings who were the subject of care and placement proceedings in 2019 and were subsequently adopted. In those proceedings the court found that O suffered a non-accidental shaking-type injury whilst in the care of his parents, that each parent fell within the pool of perpetrators, and that neither parent provided a candid account of the circumstances surrounding the injury.• The previous court identified longstanding concerns regarding the parents' parenting capacity, including difficulties responding appropriately to their children's needs, failures to retain parenting learning despite extensive professional support, substance misuse, poor decision-making, financial instability and concerns regarding the mother's mental health and the father's disengagement from mental health services.• Neither parent accepts responsibility for, or can provide an explanation for, O's injuries and the threshold findings record that their lack of insight into those findings places Storm at risk of significant physical and emotional harm.• Storm is at risk of emotional harm arising from the history of domestic abuse within the parents' relationship, including assaults, threats, volatility within the relationship and concerns regarding home conditions.• Storm is further at risk of emotional harm arising from the parents' mental health difficulties, emotional dysregulation, and associated vulnerabilities, as set out in the agreed threshold findings.
THE LEGAL PRINCIPLES
[32]The relevant legal framework is well known and I do not propose to set it out at length. The court must consider Storm's welfare as its paramount consideration. The Court in public law proceedings must first consider whether the Local Authority has proved, on balance of probability, that, at the relevant time, Storm 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. The crossing of the threshold is no more than a prelude to making the orders sought. It is a step that empowers the Court but does not mandate the making of final care orders. If threshold is proved, then the Court proceeds to consider whether the final care plans are in the welfare interests of the child, by reference to the welfare checklists contained in s1(3) of the CA 1989 and 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.[33]The case of Re T (Children: Risk Assessment) [2025] EWCA Civ 93 is of relevance and has been considered throughout. That judgment underscores the judiciary’s duty to ensure that care and placement orders are underpinned by robust, evidence-based reasoning and structured risk assessment rather than broad assertions of harm.[34]The realistic options for Storm 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 (A Child) (Care Proceedings: Appeal) [2013] UKSC 33). 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 her lifetime (Re W (Adoption: Approach to Long-Term Welfare) [2017] 2 FLR 391 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). The issue of proportionality when considering adoption was also considered in (Re F (A Child: Placement[35]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 (A Child) [2015] EWFC 11 and Re W (Care Proceedings) [2023] EWCA Civ 1251, that society must be willing to tolerate very diverse standards of parenting. The Court does not expect perfection from parents. Rather it asks whether the parents can provide ‘good enough care’ for the child. In considering whether parents can provide good enough care regard must be had to forms of support that might be available or which should be offered and which might fill the perceived deficits in care otherwise arising. This needs to be particularly borne in mind in cases in which a parent is impacted upon by a disability (physical or otherwise) which may impact on parenting but which may be capable of being addressed and ameliorated by appropriate support.[36]A placement order can only be made where either the parents with parental responsibility consent, or the Court dispenses with consent pursuant to section 52(1)(b) Adoption and Children Act 2002.[37]The Court must have regard to the Art 6 and 8 rights of the parties. Any interference with these rights must be necessary and proportionate (P, C and S v United Kingdom (2002) 35 EHRR 31).
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
[38]ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS Threshold is established and not disputed. The court's task is therefore to determine the welfare outcome that best meets Storm's lifelong interests and whether the orders sought are necessary and proportionate. The principal issues for determination are whether the court should approve the local authority’s plan for adoption, or to accede to the requests for rehabilitation, or for more time and assessment, and what arrangements for contact should be made if a placement order is granted.[39]The Enhanced Welfare Checklist (ACA).(a) The child’s ascertainable wishes and feelings (considered in the light of her age and understanding) Storm is nine months old and is too young to express her wishes and feelings directly. She has no understanding of the proceedings or of the long-term decisions the court is required to make on her behalf. The court must therefore consider her welfare through her observable experiences and developmental needs. Storm has lived with her foster carers since her discharge from hospital following her birth and has experienced a consistent, safe, and nurturing environment throughout her life. She has also been able to maintain regular and consistent family time with both parents. The evidence demonstrates that she is a happy, settled, and engaging baby who responds positively to the care provided to her. It is reasonable to conclude that Storm would wish to continue to be cared for in a safe, loving, and stable environment where her needs are consistently met and where she is protected from harm.(b) The child’s particular needs Storm is wholly dependent upon her carers to meet her physical, emotional, developmental and safety needs. She requires caregivers who can provide safe, attuned, and responsive care, recognise and respond appropriately to her cues, maintain routines, and promote her emotional security and development. The evidence is that Storm is thriving in her foster placement. Her foster carer reports that she is meeting all developmental milestones and that no concerns were identified at her six-month developmental review. Going forward, she requires permanence, stability, and carers capable of meeting her needs throughout her childhood.(c) The likely effect on Storm throughout her life of having ceased to be a member of her birth family and become an adopted person Adoption would involve the permanent legal severance of Storm’s relationship with her birth family and would therefore constitute a profound intervention in her family life. There will inevitably be loss associated with that outcome and, as she grows older, Storm may have questions regarding her origins, identity, and birth family. However, adoption would provide Storm with the permanence, security, and stability that she requires within her timescales. Given her young age, she has the opportunity to establish secure attachments within a permanent family from an early stage of her life. It is important for Storm to have a good understanding of her birth family and heritage if adoption is approved. Both parents have maintained regular and consistent contact with her, and those relationships are important aspects of her identity. The plan includes direct post-adoption contact and the exploration of direct and indirect contact with her older siblings, which would assist Storm in maintaining meaningful links to her family history whilst enjoying the security of a permanent adoptive placement.(d) The child’s age, sex, background and any relevant characteristics Storm is a nine-month-old baby girl. She is the third child of her parents. Her two older full siblings were the subject of previous care and placement proceedings and were subsequently adopted. Storm’s background is therefore characterised by longstanding local authority involvement arising from findings of non-accidental injury to a sibling, concerns regarding domestic abuse, mental health difficulties, substance misuse, and deficits in safeguarding insight. These matters form an important part of Storm’s life story and underscore the need for stability, permanence and carers who can protect her welfare whilst supporting her understanding of her family history as she grows older.(e) Any harm which Storm has suffered or is at risk of suffering I have addressed risk throughout this judgment, risklinks inextricably to how capable the mother and father are of meeting her needs. Storm has not suffered direct harm and has benefited from safe and consistent care whilst living with her foster carers. However, the threshold findings establish a risk of significant harm if returned to parental care. The evidence demonstrates a continuing risk of significant harm were Storm to return to either parent’s care as I will address shortly.(f) The relationship which the child has with relatives and any other relevant persons Storm has positive relationships with both of her parents and enjoys regular family time with them. The evidence demonstrates warmth and affection between Storm and her parents, and both parents have remained committed to maintaining contact with her. However, the evidence equally demonstrates that the parents require substantial prompting and support in order to meet Storm’s needs appropriately and safely. No family member has been identified as a realistic long-term carer for her. Whilst Storm’s relationships with her parents remain important and should continue to be recognised within future planning, there is no realistic family placement available capable of meeting her lifelong needs. I also recognise the significance a potential relationship with her full siblings, notwithstanding that they have not been brought up together. Those relationships form part of her identity and life story and are matters that should continue to be considered within future permanence planning.
Risk Analysis
[45]In assessing risk, I remind myself that the issue is not whether these parents love Storm. Clearly they do. Nor is it whether they have engaged with professionals and assessments. They have done so throughout these proceedings and have demonstrated commitment to Storm as well as warmth and affection during family time. The question for the court is whether Storm can be safely cared for by either parent, now or within timescales which meet her welfare needs. Having considered the evidence as a whole, I am satisfied that the risks identified are longstanding, cumulative and unresolved. They arise not from any single issue but from the combination of the findings relating to O’s non-accidental injuries, the parents’ continuing lack of safeguarding insight, emotional and psychological vulnerabilities, executive functioning difficulties, concerns relating to substance misuse, a history of domestic abuse and an inability to translate parenting knowledge into safe and consistent parenting practice.[46]The starting point must be the injuries suffered by O. Those findings remain a highly significant feature of this case. Neither parent can provide a satisfactory explanation for the injuries he sustained, nor have they demonstrated any meaningful understanding of how such harm occurred or what steps would be required to prevent a recurrence. Although both parents now seek to place responsibility upon the other, those positions have only emerged following the breakdown of their relationship. In my judgment, such accounts do not demonstrate genuine safeguarding insight. Rather, they illustrate the continuing absence of any coherent explanation for what occurred and the inability of either parent to identify and respond to risk when protection was required. As the social worker observed, the mother's recent account and the father's corresponding change of position are retrospective reinterpretations and do not evidence an ability to recognise risk in real time. The inability of either parent to explain what happened to O, together with their continuing failure to demonstrate meaningful safeguarding insight into how such risks arose and could be prevented in future, significantly undermines the court's confidence in their ability to protect Storm from future harm. I also note that neither parent acted upon these alleged suspicions for many years whilst remaining in the relationship.[47]I have considered carefully the father's submission, based upon Re T, that risk should not be regarded as static and that the court must evaluate whether historical risk factors remain present today. I accept that a number of matters have changed since 2018, including the parents' separation, the reduction in domestic abuse incidents, and some improvements in lifestyle stability. My conclusion is not that risk has remained unchanged, but rather that notwithstanding those developments the core safeguarding concerns identified by the professional evidence remain insufficiently resolved.[48]I place considerable weight upon the conclusions of the Parent Assess assessment. A recurrent theme throughout that assessment was the significant gap between knowledge and implementation. Both parents were often able to articulate safe parenting principles in theory and demonstrated a basic understanding of child development, routines, and infant care. However, when required to apply that knowledge in practice, significant difficulties consistently emerged. During family time sessions both parents required frequent prompting regarding feeding, sleeping, hygiene, safe handling, play and the recognition of Storm’s cues. Professionals repeatedly observed difficulties in recognising when Storm was hungry, tired, uncomfortable, or overstimulated. Storm was frequently overstimulated despite repeated guidance that she required rest. Advice was accepted but frequently not retained. The same concerns re-emerged despite repetition, modelling, and support. The evidence demonstrates that, whilst both parents can respond positively to guidance in the moment, neither has shown an ability to internalise that learning and apply it independently and consistently over time. For a child as young and dependent as Storm, that inability creates a significant safeguarding concern.[49]The evidence relating to emotional regulation is equally concerning. Both parents have experienced significant trauma in their own lives and both present with vulnerabilities which become particularly apparent during periods of stress. The mother has a history of PTSD, anxiety, emotional instability, self-harm, and suicidal ideation. The father has a history of emotional dysregulation, anxiety, substance misuse, and aggression associated with periods of crisis. Whilst there is evidence that both parents have experienced a period of greater stability in recent times, the professional consensus is that the change has not yet been demonstrated to be sustained. Caring for a young child inevitably involves competing demands and sustained pressure. Storm requires caregivers who can remain calm, emotionally available, and child-focused during such periods. The evidence does not provide reassurance that either parent has demonstrated that ability without ongoing support and intervention. Indeed, both the parenting assessor and Dr Alwin concluded that both parents remain vulnerable to becoming overwhelmed during times of stress and that they continue to require support to maintain their own emotional balance.[50]I take account of the father's evidence that he presently feels more emotionally stable than in the past and that he has not pursued formal mental health intervention because he believes his wellbeing has improved. However, the evidence before me indicates that as recently as June 2026 he sought support from professionals because of emotional difficulties associated with the breakdown of his relationship. Whilst I accept that this was a positive step, it demonstrates that the father's emotional functioning remains vulnerable during periods of stress. Given the demands inherent in caring for a young child, I am unable to conclude that lasting emotional stability has yet been demonstrated.[51]I also accept the evidence concerning the parents’ executive functioning difficulties and practical parenting capacity. Both assessments identify difficulties in planning, organisation, multitasking, prioritisation, and follow-through. These difficulties were reflected in practical examples including forgetting essential items for contact, struggling to anticipate Storm’s needs, difficulties maintaining routines, and failing to identify hazards within the environment. The parenting assessment identified significant concerns regarding daily living skills, household management, financial instability, and the capacity to manage competing demands. Whilst each parent possesses strengths, those strengths were repeatedly undermined by difficulties in reliability and consistency. Storm requires attentive, organised, and vigilant caregivers. The evidence demonstrates that both parents would require extensive modelling, repetition and supervision to undertake many of the ordinary tasks associated with safely caring for an infant.[52]The home environment gives rise to further concern. Repeated observations identified clutter, hygiene concerns and hazards and difficulties in maintaining an environment suitable for a young child. Whilst improvements were achieved during the assessment period, the evidence was that such improvements were largely reactive and followed professional intervention or warning. As the parenting assessor concluded, there was no evidence that the improvements had become embedded or that safe home conditions could be sustained over time. I accept that living alone, home conditions are now much improved. Similar concerns arise in relation to financial management. During the assessment, the family was observed to have very limited financial resources, inadequate food supplies and significant budgeting difficulties. These issues are not determinative in themselves, but they contribute to the court's overall assessment of the parents' ability to provide stable, reliable and consistent care for Storm.[53]I accept that the parents' separation is a genuine and material change in circumstances. However, I am not satisfied that it materially alters the risk or welfare analysis or undermines the conclusions of the professional evidence. The concerns identified within the assessments extend well beyond the dynamics of the parental relationship and include safeguarding insight, emotional regulation, executive functioning and the ability to provide safe and consistent care without prompting. Those concerns remain substantially unresolved. Whilst each now identifies aspects of the relationship as abusive and suggests that the other may have been responsible for O's injuries, and whilst both parents have advanced new accounts since the separation, this does not demonstrate an established ability to recognise and respond to safeguarding concerns in practice. Further, the separation remains recent following an 11-year relationship and has not yet been assessed over time. The court is therefore being asked to proceed on the basis that separation may lead to future change, rather than on evidence of change which has already become established and sustained. Given Storm's age and need for permanence, I am unable to treat the separation as a sufficient or enduring change capable of altering the risk or welfare evaluation.[54]I readily acknowledge that both parents have demonstrated some recent positive developments, including the ending of their relationship, improvements in home conditions, engagement with support services, and a greater willingness to reflect upon past concerns. Those developments are relevant and weigh in their favour. However, they are very recent and have not yet been demonstrated over a sufficient period of time to enable the court to conclude that they are durable, sustainable and capable of being maintained in the face of the ordinary stresses and demands of caring for a young child. That is particularly important in a case where the professional concerns relate not to a single issue but to longstanding and interconnected difficulties affecting safeguarding, emotional regulation, insight and parenting capacity.[55]In relation to substance misuse, there is undoubtedly evidence of progress. The mother's hair strand testing showed no evidence of ongoing illicit substance use. Nevertheless, concerns remain regarding her emotional vulnerability and susceptibility to stress. The position in respect of The father is more troubling. Objective testing identified THC exposure which was inconsistent with his reported abstinence and remains unexplained. The parenting assessor concluded that he remains vulnerable to relapse during periods of emotional stress, conflict and instability. Although substance misuse is not the primary risk factor in this case, it remains relevant when viewed alongside concerns regarding emotional regulation, insight, judgement and decision making.[56]I have also considered the father's submission that a package of family and professional support could be assembled to mitigate the identified risks. However, the evidence does not establish the existence of a realistic support network capable of providing the level of ongoing assistance that would be required. Nor is there evidence that such extensive intervention would reduce the identified risks to a level compatible with Storm's welfare needs.[57]When looking at the matter in its entirety, I am satisfied that the principal risk to Storm is not one of deliberate or intentional harm. Rather, it is the risk arising from the parents’ inability, despite extensive support and intervention, to provide safe, attuned, emotionally regulated, consistent and independent care for Storm without significant guidance, prompting, supervision and support. The level of intervention necessary would, in reality, amount to professional co-parenting. Such a level of support is neither realistic nor sustainable and would not provide Storm with the stable and secure parenting she requires. No witness suggested that such a package could realistically be provided within the community or maintained throughout Storm's minority.[58]I have borne particularly in mind the need to avoid assuming incapacity on the basis of neurodiversity, cognitive functioning or disability. I fully accept that parents with learning difficulties or cognitive vulnerabilities may successfully parent when appropriate support is offered and maintained. My conclusion does not arise from the parent's cognitive profiles, diagnosis of neurodevelopmental conditions or any disability in itself. Rather, it arises from the evidence regarding parenting capacity, safeguarding insight, emotional regulation, executive functioning and the inability demonstrated thus far to apply learning safely and consistently over time. The issue is not whether support should be provided, but whether support could reduce the risks to a level compatible with Storm's welfare needs. For the reasons set out above, I am not satisfied that it could do so.[59]I readily acknowledge the strengths identified by the professionals. Both parents clearly love Storm. They have remained committed to her, have attended contact consistently and have engaged fully with assessments. Those strengths are genuine and should not be underestimated. However, they do not sufficiently mitigate the serious and unresolved concerns identified throughout the professional evidence. The cumulative effect of those concerns leads me to conclude that Storm would be exposed to an unacceptable risk of physical harm, emotional harm and neglect were she returned to the care of either parent now or within timescales compatible with her welfare needs.
WELFARE EVALUATION OF THE REALISTIC OPTIONS
[60]WELFARE EVALUATION OF THE REALISTIC OPTIONS Having identified the risk and welfare factors relevant to Storm's circumstances, I turn to consider the realistic options available to her. In undertaking that exercise I remind myself that the court is required to undertake a global, holistic evaluation of each realistic option and to compare the advantages and disadvantages of each before determining whether the making of a Placement Order is both necessary and proportionate. Each realistic option must be analysed fairly by reference to Storm's welfare throughout her life. Rehabilitation to Mother[61]Mother seeks Storm's placement in her sole care. The basis upon which that proposal is advanced is that circumstances have altered significantly since the outset of proceedings. The relationship between the parents has ended. Mother now identifies the father's behaviour as abusive and controlling. She says she has reflected on past events and now accepts the possibility that father was responsible for O's injuries. Whilst I accept that the mother now advances that account, I do not treat it as establishing responsibility for O's injuries and assess risk on the basis of the findings actually made by the court. She contends that she was unable properly to identify risks whilst within that relationship and that separation presents the opportunity for change.[62]There are plainly strengths in the mother's position. She has maintained excellent attendance at contact. She presents as loving and affectionate towards Storm. There is evidence that during some individual contact sessions she has demonstrated a greater ability to focus on Storm's needs than had been seen previously when both parents attended together. She has engaged with assessments and there are no current concerns regarding illicit substance misuse. She has sought support from domestic abuse services independently. All those matters weigh in her favour.I also take account of the mother's acceptance, both in her written letter and through counsel's submissions, that she failed to protect her children and should have ended the relationship at an earlier stage. I regard that acknowledgement as a positive development and as some evidence of reflection. However, for the reasons already given, I am not satisfied that this amounts to sufficiently demonstrated and sustained change to render rehabilitation safe within Storm's timescales.[63]Whilst separation is a significant development, I have already concluded that the central concerns identified within the professional evidence remain substantially unresolved. Those concerns extend beyond the parental relationship and continue to prevent safe rehabilitation within Storm's timescales.[64]Drawing together all of those matters, I am satisfied that the mother's positive qualities and recent progress are insufficient to overcome the significant concerns identified within the professional evidence. I remain satisfied that she is unable to meet Storm's needs safely, consistently and independently within timescales compatible with Storm's welfare. Rehabilitation to the mother's care is therefore not a realistic option for Storm.
Rehabilitation to Father
[65]Rehabilitation to Father Father's position evolved during proceedings. Whilst initially seeking Storm's rehabilitation, he then accepted at IRH that he was not presently in a position to care for her and instead suggested long-term fostering with future reassessment. At this final hearing he again wavered, stating that he thought he was capable of caring for Storm with work, but then stated that he required further assessment, whilst also asserting that he could care for her immediately. Such potential rehabilitation to father remains an option which must be analysed, particularly when the options are stark.[66]As with the mother, the father has a number of significant strengths. The evidence demonstrates a warm and affectionate relationship between him and Storm. The family time records contain many positive observations of his interactions with her, evidencing a developing attachment and an ability to meet her immediate care needs during supervised sessions. The records also demonstrate that he has been receptive and responsive to guidance provided by professionals. I fully accept that the father loves Storm and has shown a genuine commitment to remaining involved in her life. I further accept that the father's strengths extend beyond a commitment to contact alone. There is evidence that he can appropriately meet Storm's basic needs within the supervised setting and that he has recently taken steps to address some of the concerns identified in the assessments. In particular, he has engaged with substance misuse services and undertaken work in relation to domestic abuse. These are important and positive developments and should not be minimised.[67]Despite the suggestions on behalf of the father that there was a failure on the part of the local authority to convene a further family group conference to look at support for him in caring for Storm, the evidence is clear that family options were fully considered. The paternal grandmother and paternal brother declined to become involved citing personal commitments and an inability to provide practical support. The mother did not want her family to be involved. No viable family network could be identified to participate in creating a family support plan. The matter was also explored during the father’s evidence and it was clear that little, if any, realistic family support was available. The paternal grandmother has significant health issues which involve hospital admissions and she also cares for her own 17 year old daughter, the father’s sister, who needs 24/7 care. Father also assists regularly with care for his own mother and sister. His brother has his own family commitments and can only offer transport or advice. There is no realistic family support. I am satisfied that the Local Authority has taken reasonable and proportionate steps to identify family members who could offer suitable support or indeed care.[68]For the reasons already set out when refusing the father's application for further assessment and within my risk analysis, I am not satisfied that the remaining concerns are capable of being addressed and demonstrated within a timeframe compatible with Storm's welfare. Although father has shown commitment to Storm and some evidence of progress, rehabilitation would require further work, assessment and demonstration of sustained change over time. There is presently no reliable evidence identifying when that point might be reached. Rehabilitation to father is therefore not a realistic option within Storm's timescale. Kinship Care and Wider Family Options[69]The law rightly recognises the importance of the child's upbringing within her wider family wherever that can safely be achieved. Before considering adoption, the court must therefore be satisfied that all realistic family alternatives have been explored. The evidence demonstrates that extensive enquiries were undertaken. The paternal grandmother initially withdrew, later expressed interest, but ultimately confirmed that she could not proceed. Her own significant caring responsibilities, health difficulties and practical limitations prevented her from offering care, as I have already addressed. The maternal grandfather expressed interest only at a late stage of proceedings. The Local Authority sought to explore that possibility but the proposal was never progressed because of his failure to engage.[70]The local authority also explored wider family options through the family group conference process before Storm's birth. Despite engagement with a number of relatives, no family member was identified who was willing and able to offer care or practical support. The unfortunate reality is that no viable family placement exists for Storm. Kinship care and special guardianship are therefore not realistic. Adoption and Long-Term Foster Care[71]The principal realistic alternative to adoption is long-term foster care. Although the father previously advanced long-term foster care as an alternative to adoption pending reassessment, his final position was that Storm should ultimately achieve permanence with him through further assessment or rehabilitation. Nevertheless, long-term foster care remains a realistic option requiring evaluation by the court. I accept that long-term foster care is a realistic option and not a merely theoretical one. It would keep Storm safe and preserve her legal relationship with her birth family. It therefore requires careful evaluation and comparison with adoption. I have specifically considered the father's previous submission that long-term foster care could be viewed as a holding position whilst he undertook further work and reassessment. I accept that his proposals are advanced from a genuine wish to preserve the possibility of family rehabilitation rather than to avoid decision-making. However, the difficulty remains that there is presently no reliable evidence identifying when such rehabilitation might become achievable. The court is therefore unable to identify any clear endpoint to the proposed period of foster care. In reality, the proposal would leave Storm waiting for an uncertain future possibility rather than providing her with an identified route to permanence.[72]There are advantages to a plan of long-term foster care. Such a plan would ensure Storm's immediate safety whilst preserving her legal relationship with her birth parents and wider family. It would avoid the irrevocable consequences of adoption. Storm would retain her legal identity within her birth family and, importantly, there would remain the possibility of future applications by her parents should they be able to demonstrate significant and sustained change. Long-term foster care would also facilitate a more extensive relationship between Storm and her birth parents if that is in her interests. An adoptive placement is unlikely to be as flexible. The preservation of family identity, biological connections and continuing relationships are factors to which I attach proper weight. Both parents love Storm and there is no dispute that she has enjoyed contact with them throughout her life.[73]Against those advantages stand a number of significant disadvantages. Long-term foster care would mean that Storm remains a looked-after child throughout her minority. Decisions concerning important aspects of her life would continue to be taken within and subject to the statutory framework. She would be subject to social work involvement, looked-after child reviews and continuing state intervention until adulthood. Whilst many children thrive in foster care, it cannot be ignored that such arrangements inherently lack the legal permanence and psychological security ordinarily associated with family life.[74]The court must also consider Storm's age. She is not an older child with an established identity rooted in her birth family. She has never lived with either parent. She is a baby whose primary need is for permanence and the opportunity to establish secure lifelong attachments as early as possible. The evidence before the court is that she is thriving in foster care but that placement was never intended to be her permanent home. The question is therefore not whether foster care can keep Storm safe; plainly it can. The question is whether it can meet her lifelong welfare needs as effectively as adoption. In my judgment, adoption offers benefits which long-term foster care cannot replicate. Adoption would provide Storm with one set of permanent parents and a lifelong family. It would allow her to grow up knowing where she belongs and with the security that her placement is intended to endure throughout childhood and beyond. Unlike long-term fostering, adoption would remove the continuing uncertainty associated with public care arrangements and minimise the risk of future litigation concerning her placement and adoption offers a greater degree of legal and psychological permanence than long-term fostering.[75]For Storm, delay is not a neutral factor. Every month spent awaiting potential future change is a month in which permanence is deferred. Given her young age, the postponement of a permanent decision would represent a significant proportion of her childhood. Whilst delay might create an additional opportunity for the parents, there is no reliable evidence that it would create a realistic prospect of successful rehabilitation. In contrast, there is clear evidence that continued uncertainty would postpone the achievement of permanence, stability and security. I therefore regard delay as a factor weighing positively in favour of reaching a final decision now rather than preserving speculative future possibilities.[76]I have also considered the losses inherent in adoption. Adoption would permanently sever the legal relationship between Storm and her birth parents. It would deprive both parents of the opportunity to raise their daughter and deprive Storm of being brought up within her birth family. These are profound consequences. They require particular justification and they weigh heavily in the welfare balance. The proposals for ongoing direct and indirect contact cannot fully compensate for those losses. However, when the advantages and disadvantages of both options are compared side by side, I conclude that adoption better meets Storm's welfare needs throughout her life. Long-term foster care would preserve legal links and future possibilities but at the cost of continuing uncertainty and lifelong state involvement. Adoption, whilst more interventionist, provides a level of permanence, belonging and security which long-term foster care cannot match for a child of Storm's age. Given the absence of any realistic prospect of rehabilitation within Storm's timescale, the preservation of future possibilities does not outweigh her present need for permanence.[77]Standing back and considering all realistic options, I conclude that neither rehabilitation to either parent, nor kinship care, nor long-term foster care can meet Storm's welfare needs as effectively as adoption. The advantages of adoption outweigh the profound disadvantages associated with the severance of legal ties with her birth family. Having undertaken the required holistic welfare evaluation and proportionality exercise, and having compared each realistic option, I am satisfied that none of the less interventionist alternatives is capable of meeting Storm's welfare needs throughout her minority. Accordingly, on the facts of this case, nothing else will do. Adoption is therefore necessary and proportionate. I have borne fully in mind the Article 8 rights of Storm and each of her parents. Adoption represents the most significant interference with family life that the court can sanction. However, I am satisfied that all less interventionist options have been carefully considered and that none can safeguard and promote Storm's welfare sufficiently. The making of a placement order is therefore a necessary and proportionate interference with the family's Article 8 rights in pursuit of the legitimate aim of securing Storm's welfare throughout her childhood and beyond.
Post-Adoption Contact
[78]Post-Adoption Contact The final issue concerns post-adoption contact. The parents seek direct contact four times each year. The Local Authority and the Guardian each propose one annual direct contact session together with keeping-in-touch letters. I accept that ongoing direct contact can bring significant benefits to Storm. Both parents have consistently attended contact, have demonstrated love and commitment towards her and there is no suggestion that direct contact would place Storm at risk. Direct contact may assist Storm in developing an understanding of her origins, maintaining a sense of identity and preserving a meaningful connection with parents who plainly care deeply for her. The question is therefore not whether direct contact should take place, but what level of contact best promotes Storm's welfare. In considering that issue, I bear in mind that the purpose of post-adoption contact is not to preserve a parental relationship akin to rehabilitation, but to support Storm's identity and understanding of her family history whilst enabling her primary attachments to develop securely within her adoptive family. There is some force in the parents' submission that more frequent contact would maintain greater familiarity and continuity. However, Storm is an infant who, if adopted, will look to her adoptive parents as her primary carers throughout childhood. I am not persuaded that four occasions each year are necessary to secure the welfare benefits of direct contact and, in my judgment, annual direct contact achieves an appropriate balance between Storm's need to retain meaningful links with her birth family and her need for security and permanence within her adoptive family.[79]Having considered section 26 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 and the recent authorities concerning post-adoption contact, I am satisfied that one annual direct contact, supplemented by keeping-in-touch letters and continued consideration of sibling contact, best promotes Storm's welfare throughout her life. Such contact will provide Storm with an ongoing and meaningful link to her birth family, support her developing sense of identity and recognise the positive commitment both parents have shown towards her. Whilst I accept that direct contact is likely to be beneficial, I am not persuaded that there is a welfare basis for contact taking place four times each year. Annual direct contact achieves an appropriate balance between preserving meaningful family links and promoting the stability and security of her adoptive placement. This arrangement is supported by both the Guardian and the Local Authority, forms an integral part of the care plan, and there is no evidence to suggest that it is unrealistic or incapable of implementation. In those circumstances, although I consider annual direct contact to be beneficial and desirable, I am not satisfied that Storm's welfare requires the additional safeguard of a freestanding post-adoption contact order. Contact should therefore proceed through the care plan and future adoption planning rather than by way of a mandatory post-adoption contact order.
Dispensing With Consent
[80]Dispensing With Consent The court may only dispense with the consent of a parent to the making of a Placement Order if satisfied that the child's welfare requires that consent to be dispensed with: s.52(1)(b) Adoption and Children Act 2002. I remind myself that dispensing with parental consent constitutes a profound interference with the Article 8 rights of both Storm and her parents. The court must therefore be satisfied that such interference is necessary and proportionate and that no less interventionist order would adequately safeguard and promote Storm's welfare.[81]Both parents oppose adoption and wish to maintain their legal relationship with Storm. I have carefully considered whether Storm's welfare could be met through placement with either parent, kinship care or long-term foster care. I incorporate by reference my earlier welfare evaluation and proportionality analysis and do not repeat it here. For the reasons set out above, I have concluded that rehabilitation to either parent is not compatible with Storm's welfare within her timescale, that there are no viable family carers, and that long-term foster care does not provide the permanence, stability and lifelong security which Storm requires.[82]Having undertaken a holistic evaluation of all realistic options, I am satisfied that adoption is necessary to meet Storm's needs throughout her life. In those circumstances, her welfare requires the making of a Placement Order and requires that the consent of both parents be dispensed with pursuant to s.52(1)(b) Adoption and Children Act 2002. I am satisfied that this conclusion is both necessary and proportionate and that, in the circumstances of this case, nothing less will do.[83]Accordingly, the application for further assessment is refused. I make a final care order and a placement order in relation to Storm. I approve the Local Authority's care plan for adoption and thereafter the proposal for one annual direct contact with each parent, together with letterbox contact and the continued exploration of sibling contact as set out within the care plan. HHJ Hesford 27 August 2026 APPENDIX 1 Threshold Findings Approved by the Court on 9 January 2026 Full threshold not included to preserve anonymity Threshold findings were agreed and approved by the court on 9 January 2026. In summary, those findings concerned non-accidental injury to an older sibling, domestic abuse, parental mental health difficulties, substance misuse and deficits in parenting capacity and safeguarding insight.