Oxfordshire County Council v M & Ors [2026] EWFC 92 (B)

[2026] EWFC 92 (B)
IN THE FAMILY COURT SITTING AT OXFORD
HEARD 16 th,17 th, 20 th, 21 st April 2026
JUDGMENT HANDED DOWN ON 27 TH APRIL 2026
Before Her Honour Judge Owens
Oxfordshire County Council, ApplicantM, First RespondentF, Second RespondentA, Third respondentB & C Fourth & Fifth respondents, acting through their Children’s Guardian
Between
Oxfordshire County CouncilApplicantM, FirstRespondentF, SecondRespondentA, ThirdRespondentB & C Fourth & Fifth respondents, acting through their Children’s GuardianRespondent for Applicant Local Authority: Ms Wilkins, Counsel, instructed by Mr Croxford, Senior Solicitor for Oxfordshire County Council for M, First Respondent: Mr Powell, Counsel, instructed by Ms Hancock of Boardman, Hawkins and Osborne Solicitors LLP for F, Second Respondent: Mr Lorie, Counsel, instructed by Ms Davies of Reeds Solicitors LLP for A, Third Respondent: Mr Perry, Counsel, instructed by Ms Holyoake of Jackson West Solicitors for B & C, acting through the Children’s Guardian, Natalie Allen: Ms Wickham, Counsel, instructed by Ms Smith of Oxford Law GroupThis judgment is being handed down in private on 27 th April 2026. It consists of 41 pages and has been signed and dated by the Judge. The Judge has given permission for judgment (and any of the facts and matters contained in it) to be published on condition that in any report, no person other than the advocates or the solicitors instructing them (and other persons identified by name in the judgment itself) may be identified by name, current address or location [including school or work place]. In particular the anonymity of the children and the members of their family must be strictly preserved. All persons, including representatives of the media, must ensure that these conditions are strictly complied with. Failure to do so will be a contempt of court. For the avoidance of doubt, the strict prohibition on publishing the names and current addresses of the parties will continue to apply where that information has been obtained by using the contents of this judgment to discover information already in the public domain.INTRODUCTION, BACKGROUND AND EVIDENTIAL SUMMARYDate 2026-04-27
[1]This is a final hearing in public law proceedings. M and F are the parents of A, B and C. A is separately represented given her age, views, and ability to give instructions.[2]Local Authority concerns about the children in this case have been very long-standing and centred on neglect and inconsistent parenting. The neglect issues related to poor home conditions, unmet hygiene needs, severe dental neglect, missed appointments, disrupted routines, and emotional harm arising from being cared for in an unstable and neglectful environment. Chronic neglect for B and C has had secondary health consequences for them. Both parents failed to be able to improve their parenting in the past to ensure that the children’s needs were consistently met.[3]Proceedings commenced on 20th January 2025 when the Local Authority applied for care orders in respect of all three children. The application also sought a care order in respect of an older sibling, D. The first hearing was on 30th January 2025 before HHJ Sweeney. Interim Care Orders (ICOs) were granted for all three children and the application for D was permitted to be withdrawn as D was already 17 years old. The case was timetabled to a Further Case Management Hearing (FCMH) before me on 17th February 2025.[4]A cognitive assessment of M, dated 8th February 2025, concluded that her functioning was borderline and, though she did not require an intermediary to participate in proceedings, ground rules would be required.[5]On 13th February hair strand test results for F were filed. These showed a high level of alcohol consumption in the period end of August 2024 to end of January 2025.[6]On 12th February the FCMH scheduled for 17th February 2025 was vacated by consent without a hearing, and the case re-listed for an FCMH before DJ Buckley-Clarke on 25th February 2025 (the allocation of the case being to DJ but initial hearings listed before Circuit Judges due to availability). On 25th February 2025 the case was timetabled to an Issues Resolution Hearing (IRH) on 2nd July 2025. Expert psychological assessment of M and F by Dr Bues was permitted by the Court on 5th March 2025. On 22nd May 2025 the Local Authority applied to extend the timetable having been unable to complete permanency medicals for the children and due to delays in completion of the expert psychological report, those latter being due to missed appointments by M. The consent order approved by the Court re-timetabled the IRH to 6th August 2025.[7]On 12th May 2025 the psychological assessment of F by Dr Bues was filed. The conclusions of that assessment were that he did not have any obvious psychological or learning needs and did not require any treatment or intervention for his mental health.[8]On 20th June 2025 M applied for an extension to proceedings, M having missed her first and second appointments with Dr Bues. DJ Buckley-Clarke directed that the application was to be considered at an FCMH on 23rd July 2025, however by 21st July a further application was made indicating that the parties had reached agreement about M having a further opportunity to see Dr Bues, the proceedings being re-timetabled and the IRH on 6th August being vacated and re-listed on the 19th November 2025.That application was granted by the Court.[9]On 23rd September 2025, F applied for an ISW to assess his parenting capability. That application was duly listed for an FCMH on 13th October 2025 before me. F’s application was refused and the case re-timetabled because the Agency Decision Maker date of 14th November had been re-arranged since the last timetable was approved by the Court. The IRH was re-listed to 22nd December 2025.[10]On 19th December 2025 M applied for an extension to enable her to file her final evidence, the final evidence of the Local Authority having been filed late, and M having been taken ill when she had been due to meet her solicitor in any event. On 22nd December 2025, DJ Buckley-Clarke yet again re-timetabled the proceedings, with an IRH (which could also have been an Early Final Hearing) listed before me on 27th February 2026. The case was also timetabled to a contested Final Hearing (FH) before me commencing on 16th April for seven days.[11]At the IRH on 27th February 2026, the Local Authority was permitted to withdraw the Placement Order application in respect of C, having accepted the conclusions of the updated Sibling Assessment dated 29th December 2025 and of the Guardian that he should not be separated from his sibling, B. The Local Authority was granted a further extension to file final care plans, and a final threshold document, and extensions were granted for M and F to file their final evidence. The issues for the FH were narrowed as both M and F accepted that threshold was crossed for the purposes of section 31 on the basis of concessions already made by M and M accepted the conclusions of Dr Bues that she was not in a position to resume care of the children at the moment. M therefore supported placement of the children with F or continued foster care if they could not be cared for by F. F sought to care for all three children. The time estimate for the final hearing was therefore reduced however, in light of the participation measures required by M and the need for me to explain to M and the children, particularly A, the outcome, hearing time on 16th, 17th, 20th and 21st April was preserved, with judgment being reserved and to be handed down on 27th April 2026.[12]I have read the very extensive bundle for this case, and heard evidence from the parenting assessor, the contact supervisor, the current allocated social worker, F and the Guardian.

PARTIES’ POSITIONS

[13]The Local Authority final care plans for A, B and C are of long-term foster care under final care orders, with A remaining in her current foster care placement, and B and C being placed together. At this FH the proposed plans for contact were amended to be broadly in line with the Guardian’s recommendations.[14]M, as noted above, accepts that she must focus on the therapeutic work identified as necessary by Dr Bues and that she cannot care for the children at present. She would like the children to be cared for by F, but if that is not possible then she would agree to them being placed in long-term foster care.[15]F wants to care for all three children. He says that his circumstances have changed, he is no longer required to work as extensively as in the past, and he proposes moving out of area relying on support from his extended family to help care for the children. He is willing to undertake further parenting work and accepts that he needs support. On the day before this FH was due to start, he applied again to be assessed by an ISW. The application gave no explanation for its being made so late in the proceedings, but Mr Lorie for F accepted that it should be considered as part of the FH rather than apply to adjourn the final hearing at the outset.[16]A met me via videolink on the morning of 16th April 2026 before this final hearing started. She wanted to know when she would know the outcome of this FH, wants to return to live with her parents but if that is not possible then she would like to see them and her siblings as much as possible and no less than she has done during proceedings. She also wants to spend some time with her parents on her own, without her siblings.[17]The Guardian supports the Local Authority final care plans for the children but is more open to there being more sibling only contact than is set out in the revised contact plan.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

[18]The Court in public law proceedings must first consider whether the Local Authority has proved, on balance of probabilities, that at the relevant time A, B and C were suffering or were at risk of suffering significant harm as set out in s31 of the CA 1989. The burden of proof is on the Local Authority and must be based on evidence (ABC (Children: Overlaying Child) [2020] EWFC 57). As set out by Lady Hale in B (A Child) [2013] UKSC 33 at para 193:
“when deciding whether the threshold is crossed the court should identify, as precisely as possible, the nature of the harm which is the child is suffering or likely to suffer…Significant harm is harm which is ‘considerable, noteworthy or important’”
. If threshold is proved, then the Court proceeds to consider whether the final care plans are in the welfare interests of the children, by reference to the welfare checklist contained in s1(3) of the CA 1989.[19]The Court will have regard to the art 6 and 8 rights of A, B, C, M and F.[20]The options for the children must be weighed in accordance with the considerations set out in Re B-S (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 1146.[21]I have borne in mind the principle set out by Hedley J in Re L (Care: Threshold Criteria) [2007] 1 FLR 2050 that society must be willing to tolerate diverse standards of parenting.[22]Since there is an application by F for a further parenting assessment of him, Part 25 of the Family Procedure Rules (FPR) and PD25B are applicable. Section 13(7) of the Children and Families Act 2014 (“the 2014 Act”) and the factors listed thereunder must be taken into account. As F’s application was made mid-morning on the day before this FH was due to start, FPR 25.6(a) and section 13(7)(a) and (f) are particularly relevant since these respectively deal with the expectation that applications should be made as early as possible in the proceedings and no later than a CMH, the impact that giving permission would be likely to have on the welfare of the children, and the impact which giving permission would be likely to have on the timetable for, and duration and conduct of, the proceedings. Also relevant authority in relation to late applications for assessment is L & Ors (Children: care proceedings) [2017] EWHC 2081 Fam. Ultimately, as set out in section 13(6) of the 2014 Act, the court may only grant permission for expert evidence by way of assessment where it is necessary to assist the court to determine the proceedings justly. The Court of Appeal has held that “‘necessary’ means necessary”, it lies somewhere between ‘indispensable’ and ‘useful’, ‘reasonable’ or ‘desirable’ on the other; it has the connotation of the imperative, what is demanded that than what is merely optional, reasonable or desirable (H-L [2013] EWCA Civ 655).[23]I have also been mindful of the cases of N (Parenting Assessment) [2012] EWCA Civ 1141 and Z (Independent Social Work Assessment) 2014 EWHC 729 (Fam). In the former case the Court of Appeal overturned the decision of a trial judge not to order a parenting assessment of the father where that might have led to delay, though this case pre-dated the implementation of both the FPR and the 2014 Act. Both dealt with the absence of any parenting assessment of the father rather than, as in this case, an application for further assessment after one had been completed and reached negative conclusions about parenting ability. I note that there is no statutory obligation for there to be a parenting assessment, nor any statutory definition of a parenting assessment or its ambit. In the case of Cheshire East Borough Council v NA & Ors [2017] EWFC 20 MacDonald J endorsed the statutory guidance in Working Together to Safeguard Children (DfE 2015, updated 2022) as setting out the principles and parameters of good assessment, albeit of close relatives rather than parents but the DfE guidance referred to mirrors that of the NSPCC’s 2014 publication Assessing Parenting Capacity and is thus equally applicable to parenting assessments. The gist of that guidance is that assessments must be rooted in child development, informed by evidence, involve children and families, adopt an integrated approach, to be a continuing process and not an event. The Working Together to Safeguard Children guidance makes clear that, overall, the aim of assessment is to identify difficulties and risk factors as well as developing a picture of strengths and protective factors.[24]Mr Powell for M also referred me to the case of Re W (A Minor) (Custody) (1983) 2 FLR 492, though I note that the criticism of the welfare officer in that case for not seeing the child with each parent was in the context of a private law dispute about the nature and strength of the relationships between the child and each parent and in particular the intensity of the attachment between the child and her mother. That is different to this case where all accept that there is a very loving bond between the children and their parents and vice versa.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

[25]The final threshold document dated 19th March 2026 is appended to this judgment but is not agreed. M accepts the vast majority of the threshold concerns about her but wants some wording to be added to two of the criteria. There is only one paragraph that relates to F and that is whether he was a regular visitor to the house. In respect of the additional words that M asks to be added, these seek to qualify criteria 1(a) and (b) by noting that she was trying to improve the diets of B and C. I am not sure what they add to the objective question that the Court has to consider about threshold, though I can see why a vulnerable parent such as M might want it to be recorded that she was making efforts. The evidence is simply overwhelming in relation to the neglect that all three children suffered in this case, the Guardian rightly describing it as some of the worst that she has ever seen when she gave me her evidence. Threshold does not require any imputed culpability or intentional action, applying B (A Child). As submitted by Ms Wilkins in closing, there is also no evidential basis to support a finding along the lines sought by M, whereas there is evidence from the Health Visitor at C185 to support the threshold finding sought by the Local Authority. For these reasons the additions sought by M are not found by me to form part of threshold.[26]In relation to F, the Child Protection Conference notes from 24th January 2024 at F1-26 show that F was at the Conference and clearly therefore aware of the neglect issues. He, together with M, was tasked with various actions to improve both the home conditions and the basic care of the children. At F19 he told the conference that he visited the children and stayed in the home every two weekends. At F21-F22 it was noted that M would seek support from F (as well as family or professionals), and that F would continue to support M to clear and make improvements to the home if she was struggling to keep on top of household chores or with her mental health. He was similarly present for the Child Protection Review Conference held on 27th March 2024 (F27-F55) and was noted to be expected to “chase up the referral for B with the hospital dentist and that he and M will ensure that the children have toothpaste and toothbrushes and are supported to clean their teeth twice daily. F will book an eye test for all of the children within the next 2 weeks” (F42). He was also supposed to engage in a financial assessment as part of the Graded Care profile (F43), something that is relevant to the concerns raised by the Parenting Assessor later in her report in June 2025 because it was not clear what financial contribution F was making to the family. He continued to tell the Conference that he visited every two weekends and stayed in the home (F48). The next review was on 23rd September 2024, F attended and told the Conference that he continued to visit frequently and that when he was there, he made an effort to clear and sort things out, but things seemed to slip back when he was not there (F63-F64). By the time of the Child Protection Mid Point Review on 17th December 2024, it was noted by professionals that F had not supported the home being deep cleaned as planned previously, and there were ongoing concerns about the children’s feet being filthy because of the poor home conditions. F and M had been unable to support A to reintegrate with full time schooling and her attendance remained low (F129). Concerns also remained about the children’s medical and dental needs.[27]A Parenting Assessment of M was completed by the Local Authority in September 2024 (C0a-C0n), which noted that F worked away and only returned home at weekends and occasionally during the week. It also noted that M met F when she was 16 years old, that she fell pregnant with D when she was 19, that the family were quite isolated and that there were concerns about F’s ability to regulate his emotions, as well as the previously noted concerns about poor home conditions and neglect of the children’s basic needs. In the initial statement of the social worker in these proceedings, dated 20th January 2025, it was noted that F “maintains he does not live with the children but does visit them on a regular basis” (C2). At C4 in that statement the social worker confirmed that F was informed about the dental concerns for the children identified in their Child Protection Medicals on 18th October 2024 and 9th December 2024 but “unfortunately, neither parent took any initiative to book a dental appointment for the children to have their dental pain and hygiene addressed”.[28]It is clear from the social work evidence that F was regularly staying in the family home even if he and M were not in a relationship. The initial social work statement also makes it clear that F was seen at times in the family home by professionals, noting a concern that at times during these visits he would shout and become hostile to professionals in the presence of the children(C22). The same statement also noted that F did not “take responsibility for failing to meet the needs of the children” (C23), tending to put the blame on others, and “even when significant support has been offered, F has been reluctant to accept this and has suggested that he does not need social care to inform him how to parent his children” (ibid).[29]F also told Dr Bues during her psychological assessment of him that he was living in London during the week, and that “he was aware of the problems and then acknowledged that he could have done more to help. F said that he could see the home conditions deteriorating but that he was unaware of the concerns in relation to the children” (E79). He told Dr Bues that he “should have seen past” M telling him that things were okay (ibid). He also told her that he returned to live in the family home “six months ago” (E81), which means that he was living in there from some time in early October 2024 as that was six months prior to the date of his interview with Dr Bues on 2nd April 2025 (E73).[30]F did not file an initial statement in these proceedings until 25th March 2026 (C481-C486), despite having been directed to file his first statement by 4pm on 7th February 2025 (B36), though this was extended by consent to 4pm on 21st February 2025 on 12th February 2025 when the parents decided not to contest the continued removal of the children from their care (B41-B42). A further extension to 21st March 2025 was granted at an FCMH on 25th February 2025, then on 6th August 2026 this appears to have changed to a direction to file final evidence by 17th October 2025 in response to final evidence from the Local Authority. When I saw the case for an FCMH on 13th October 2025, the direction was given for him to file both a response to initial threshold and an initial statement in response to the initial Local Authority evidence by 4pm on 20th October 2025. However, at the abortive IRH on 22nd December 2025 the direction for parents’ final statements was further extended, and was further extended again at the adjourned IRH on 27th February 2026, though I cannot see an explanation for his failure to comply with the earlier direction. A statement from F was not therefore received until over 12 months after the proceedings had been underway. In both his 26th March 2026 statement (C481-C486) and his 14th April 2026 statement (C498-C510) he denied going into the house, and in his oral evidence in chief to me he said most of the time he collected the children from the front door or living room, explaining that the living room was straight off of the hall, and never saw the condition of the house. He said that it was only when he moved back to the family home in October 2024 that he saw the entire house. I did not find him at all credible about this aspect. He was seen by various professionals in the house during the Child Protection Planning from January 2024 onwards, for example C40 2nd March 2024. He changed his evidence about when he was in the home when Ms Wilkins put this to him and then accepted that he had been aware of the home conditions from well before October 2024 too though had been denying this as well up to this point. All of this undermined his credibility and I am satisfied on balance of probability that he was a regular visitor to the house as is set out in the final threshold document and will find accordingly. The remainder of the threshold criteria are not disputed, and I am satisfied on the basis of the unchallenged evidence about these that they are also made out on balance of probabilities. I therefore find that threshold is crossed for the purposes of section 31 in this case as set out in the appendix to this judgment.[31]The relevant welfare checklist considerations are the next aspect that I must consider. The first relevant heading is the wishes and feelings of the children in light of their age and understanding. A is 14 years old and her wishes and feelings are therefore to be given more weight than those of much younger children, however they are not determinative of the welfare outcome of proceedings. She has a close relationship with her parents and has been clear that she wants to return to live with them. She is clearly aware of F’s plans to find his own accommodation and for her to live with him there and told me that she would be willing to consider this, and apparently has also told her solicitor that she would like this. However, as noted by the Guardian in her Final Analysis at E139 she is extremely loyal to her parents and would be unlikely to verbalise any deficiencies in their parenting. Despite her consistent wish to go home, she has built a good relationship with her current foster carers and is noted by the allocated social worker and Guardian to be thriving in their care, though this aspect is disputed by M, F and A in light of concerns noted about alcohol, drugs and an incident at school which aspects I will return to later under the heading of risk of harm. She has also told the Guardian that she would like to remain with her current foster carer long term if she cannot go home. However, she also later told the Guardian that she would like to live with her brothers if they could not go home. It is important to note that it is not just a child’s wishes and feelings that a court has to consider, but these are to be viewed in ‘light of their age and understanding’. As was pointed out by the Guardian in her evidence to me, A has had the longest exposure to concerns about the parenting of her (those concerns going back to 2017 in this area though little is known about the family prior to this). Though she does not seem to have suffered the sort of appalling dental, medical and physical neglect that B and C experienced, she was living in the same squalid home conditions and her educational needs were not met in the care of her parents. Her Child Protection Medical undertaken in December 2024 identified significant unmet mental health needs, noted that her teeth were dirty and stained with a possible failure to follow up on necessary dental work, and she was wearing malodorous clothes including underwear (E11). Her understanding is therefore informed by the impact of the harm that she has suffered, as the Guardian told me.[32]B is only eight and has told the Guardian that he is happy living with his current foster carers. The Guardian noted in her Final Analysis that B was reluctant to discuss his wishes and feelings, and she was of the opinion that he is very loyal to his parents and unlikely to say anything negative. However, the Guardian also noted that “he notices the differences in care he receives now compared to at home, and he feels safer and happier now in many ways…this is reflected in the fact that he could have told me wishes to return home but chose not to” (E142).[33]C is too young to be able to understand the court proceedings or to be able to independently articulate his wishes and feelings about where he would like to live. However, nobody disputes the professional evidence which shows that he has a close bond with B (and B with him), that he is settled and happy with his current carers, and that he looks forward to family time and seems to be particularly attached to M. Nobody disputes that all three children clearly love their parents and that they have positive time with them when Family Time takes place, and this factor will also be part of their understanding feeding into their wishes and feelings where they are old enough to able to articulate them or they can be imputed as is the case with C.[34]The next relevant welfare checklist heading is the physical, emotional and educational needs of the children. The threshold criteria that I have found show that all three children have not had their needs consistently met to a good enough standard over a prolonged period, for C in particular that is most of his life. All three domains have been a cause of concern in relation to each of the children, though to a lesser extent in terms of physical needs for A as noted above. The evidence about unmet educational needs is also shocking in this case. By the time A was removed from her parents’ care she had not been to school since October 2024 and her attendance levels prior to that had been extremely low. F’s evidence to me seemed to be that he blamed the school and Local Authority for not allowing home schooling for her, telling me that it was good enough during Covid so he could not understand why it was not acceptable afterwards. That seemed rather disingenuous to me, the situation during Covid being wholly different and it not being clear which of M or F it was proposed would take the lead in overseeing any education at home, and in any event M’s capability to support that may be compromised by her own difficulties and vulnerabilities and F’s evidence was that he was not in the family home from Monday to Friday due to his work. It seemed that what F envisaged was the school setting work for A which she would have been left to complete without parental support or guidance. Both the social worker’s evidence and that of the Guardian made it clear that all three children have additional needs as a result of the trauma they suffered due to the neglect they experienced in the care of the parents. As the Guardian told me, they need reparative parenting to enable them to recover, and good enough parenting would not be sufficient to therefore meet their emotional and psychological needs in this respect. The children also need to maintain their relationships with each other and with their parents, something that is now not in dispute given that adoption is no longer an option for C. There is a dispute about the detail of the amount and frequency of contact if the children are placed in long term foster care, but nobody disputes that they need to see each other and their parents and would be adversely affected if they were not able to do that.[35]The likely effect on the children of any change in their circumstances. All three children have had to deal with the upheaval of being removed from the care of their parents in January 2025, being placed in two separate placements so that A is on her own while B and C are together and, depending on the outcome of this FH may face further changes. Since M has accepted that she cannot care for any of the children at present (a very brave and child-focused decision as I have already noted), returning to live with her is no longer an option for the children. F seeks to care for the children on his own, something that they have never experienced before, and he proposes moving away from this area to new accommodation, which would also mean that they would have to change schools and make new friends. Even if F were to care for A on her own, this would also be a change of primary carer for her, change of home, area, school and friends for her as well as placement apart from her siblings becoming the permanent outcome too. If the children remain in long term foster care, this would also mean a change for B and C since they cannot remain with their current carers long term, though A would potentially be able to stay with her current carer subject to that carer becoming approved as a long-term foster carer. Again, this would also mean that A would be permanently placed apart from her siblings since the Local Authority accepts that it is very unlikely a joint placement for all three would be found and that moving A from her current placement where she could remain long term would also have an adverse impact on A. Any decision that I make is therefore going mean change for the children in this case and that change may have an adverse impact. Given the extremely serious harm that they have suffered in the past, it is important that the impact of any change on them is kept to a minimum and mitigated as far as is possible.[36]The children’s ages, sex, background and any characteristics of theirs the court considers relevant. I have already implicitly or explicitly covered this under other aspects in this judgment.[37]Any harm which the children have suffered or are at risk of suffering. My threshold findings are that these children have suffered extremely serious harm arising from chronic neglect. This has had long-term effects on them as I have also noted, leading to them needing better than good enough parenting to enable them to recover from the impact of that neglect. Parenting capability on the part of F (since M does not seek to care for them) is inextricably linked to considering whether there is a risk of future harm in his care since, if F were to be unable to provide the level of care that they require at this point to meet their needs, that would lead to a risk of further harm to them. If he were to be unable to parent them to the standard that they require if any of the children were to be placed with him, that would also mean that there would be a risk of instability in any such placement and a risk of removal from his care, a further change which would have an adverse impact on any child removed. Much was made during this FH by those who represent M, F and A challenging the evidence from the social worker and Guardian of A thriving in the care of her current foster carer. This challenge related to whether A has been consuming alcohol and drugs whilst in foster care, and an alleged sexual assault whilst at school. The actual evidence about this is extremely sparse. It comes from contact notes, and in relation to the allegation that A has consumed alcohol and drugs is at H165. I note that at the time, it was F who raised something that he thought A had placed on snap-chat, but A denied that she had done it or that she took drugs, saying that someone had hacked her account. She was noted to be quite upset at the accusation. She had also told the doctor in her child protection medical that she did not use any alcohol or other substances (E10). The alleged sexual assault is mentioned at H132 by the contact supervisor and again was something raised by F (notably quite loudly in a public place):
“’my daughter has been sexually abused by a boy and nobody is doing anything about it, so I have reported it to the police today,…the [social worker] knows all about it, I am not blaming you but nothing is being done’ I asked A what had happened and she said a boy called [redacted] squeezed my thigh, school have done nothing about it. I reassured dad I would raise his concerns with the social worker”
. This is the only evidence I have about this, and at its highest it seems to suggest that A’s only complaint was that the school had not acted, not that the local authority or her foster carer had failed to act. As the social worker and Guardian told me, at A’s age it would not be surprising if she were to experiment with alcohol, the important thing is that she is provided with clear boundaries by her carer around this and is able to have a trusting relationship with her carer to enable frank and open discussions about the risks involved. There is simply not enough evidence for me to conclude that somehow this demonstrates that A is not safe or thriving in the care of the local authority, I find. In contrast, there is overwhelming evidence that whilst in the care of her parents A was not provided with the sort of clear boundaries that she required and continues to require as she faces entirely predictable teenage challenges such as alcohol use. As was noted by Ms Wilkins in closing, there is also evidence that M tried to provide A with a vape during contact time on 20th July 2025 (C290), despite M saying that she was worried about A asking her to bring a vape.[38]It was also part of the cases put on behalf of M, F and A that A continues to have issues with her mental health in foster care and that this also undermines the assertion that she is thriving. It is clear from the evidence in the bundle that A has had a very long history of low mood, anxiety and episodes of self-harm, and that this continued throughout the period of Child Protection Planning which commenced in January 2024 with F in particular agreeing to try to help support her with trial runs getting on the bus to go to school as part of trying to address that particular anxiety trigger. However, F did not in fact support her with this. She was on a waiting list for CAMHS following a referral first made on 3rd July 2024 (albeit initially declined due to increasing levels of concerns about the family – C188 School Health Nurse statement). It would be rather surprising if, with this history of mental health issues and the significant harm that she has suffered, A were to suddenly have no mental health issues and I cannot see any evidence that establishes clearly that her mental health is adversely affected by her continued removal from her parents’ care to the same level as it was adversely affected when in their care.[39]At this point it seems appropriate to deal with the aspects of the evidence from and about the child practitioner and contact supervisor who gave me evidence during this hearing. There is a factual dispute about whether F was aggressive, abusive and angry during Family Time on 19th March 2026, which the Local Authority (in summary) says is relevant to the consideration of F’s parenting capability since it underlines concerns about his ability to work with professionals. Aside from that factual dispute, it seems that A did not regard this child practitioner particularly positively, as A’s letter to me at E130-E131 makes clear. Some of this child practitioner’s terminology in her evidence to me and in her notes of Family Time were not as one would necessarily expect from an experienced child practitioner and the Local Authority accepted in Ms Wilkin’s closing submissions that her dismissal of A’s self-harming as ‘attention seeking’ demonstrated a training need. Mr Perry took me to other aspects in the contact notes which used rather judgmental and perhaps overly blunt terms, describing A as a ‘stroppy teenager’ (H67), though I note that F himself also called A this when attempting to tackle her behaviour. I would suggest that maybe the training need for this individual extends beyond understanding and responding to allegations of self-harming to using more child-focused and neutral descriptors.[40]In terms of the factual dispute, F accepted that he is an “emotional person”, though did not elaborate further. There are several references throughout the professional evidence to him becoming angry, and this was observed by the other Family Time supervisor on 12th February 2025 too (H9) when F joined face to face contact by video call because he was working away. F is also noted to be quite loud at points as, for example, I noted in the contact record at H132. F is clearly critical of the actions of professionals, and it would be understandable if he were to be worried about A saying that she had been sexually assaulted. On balance, whilst there are some discrepancies in the details of the initial email description from the supervisor at C479-C480, her contact note at H158 and what she told me in her oral evidence, her evidence of F being prone to being angry and making threats to professionals as detailed at H158 was credible and I am satisfied that F did make those threats and, at times, becomes emotional and that manifests as anger. The relevance of this is that, as with the complaint of sexual assault or his reaction to her possibly using alcohol and drugs, his emotional and angry response is not a child-focused one.[41]How capable M and F are of meeting their needs. As I have already noted, M does not dispute that she is not currently capable of meeting the needs of the children and that is a very brave and child-focused decision on her part. The issue is therefore F’s parenting capability and the extent to which there is sufficient evidence to enable me to reach a conclusion about this. The Local Authority and Guardian submit that there is ample evidence to enable findings about this to be made, notwithstanding the Parenting Assessor accepting that there are some gaps in her assessment. M, F and A submit that there is insufficient evidence to show that F is not capable of meeting the needs of the children, or of A separately given the gaps in the assessment of him. In the alternative, if the court determines that it is necessary, Mr Lorie submitted that the application for an ISW assessment could be granted and proceedings extended.[42]I have therefore looked carefully at the parenting assessment of F and the criticisms that are made of it, and also borne in mind the relevant case law that I have noted earlier. I have also looked at the wider evidence of parenting capability in this case from professionals, noting that both social workers and the Guardian are quite capable of providing opinions on this in these proceedings.[43]The parenting assessment completed is at C233-C258 and was filed at the end of June 2025. It used the Parent Assess framework, but this was because of M’s vulnerabilities rather than any vulnerability on the part of F, Dr Bues having confirmed that he has no such vulnerability (E70). It was intended to be an assessment of M and F both jointly and separately (Order dated 25th February 2025 B46), and does consider each parent together or individually (C239). However, in her oral evidence to me the assessor said that she had not understood that she was to assess F separately as well as jointly, saying that the parents presented as a couple at the time she assessed them. When I clarified this with her by asking what she would have done differently if she had been assessing F separately as well as jointly, she said that there would have been a separate document so I am not sure that she really understood what she was being challenged with by Mr Lorie when he cross examined her. In any event, the peculiar thing about her oral evidence to me was that her written assessment clearly did assess the parents jointly and separately as I have noted. I can only conclude that she became confused and was perhaps nervous when giving me her oral evidence.[44]Much was made during this FH about her apparent lack of experience and allegation that she did not follow the Parent Assess model as required. Although she was clear that she had only undertaken two previous Parent Assess assessments prior to this one, having completed the training in September 2023, she did also tell me that she qualified in PAMS assessments in 2018 and has spent eight years conducting assessments of parents in care proceedings and that her assessment was conducted with support from her Team manager and Assistant Team manager and quality assured by another Team manager from outside of her team too. She is not therefore as inexperienced as Mr Lorie submitted and I am satisfied that she had sufficient qualification and experience to conduct the parenting assessment in this case.[45]It became apparent during the latter stages of these proceedings that the appendices to her assessment, listed at C258 and which form part of the Parent Assess requirements were not in the bundle or in the possession of those who represent the parents. It is not clear why this happened since the assessor was quite clear in her oral evidence to me that she had sent all of the appendices with the main report when she submitted it for filing by the Local Authority legal department. It is also not clear why the parents’ representatives did not chase these appendices if they thought they were evidentially significant, though I am not saying that this means that it was their responsibility to file and serve them. In any event, the appendices were provided at the outset of the FH. Looking at them, the outcome table, assessor’s summary table, parent’s report and M’s chronology of appointments are all items that would have been specifically required to enable M to understand the conclusions and recommendations in the full report but were not required for F to understand the conclusions and recommendations since he was not the parent who needed the Parent Assess adaptations to a parenting assessment. The only other missing document was the chronology of appointments for F and that clearly would have been relevant to F given the evidence in the assessment at C514 that “there are gaps and limitations in this report due to the difficulties in engaging both F and M with multiple missed appointments and opportunities to assess and understand the family”. When the assessor gave me her oral evidence she told me that she had completed the workbook with both parents and that the gaps and limitations were that she would have liked to have been able to discuss the workbook with the parents, and that she had not been able to see all of the children with their parents though she had seen A with them. The plan for the assessment and letter of introduction for F are in the bundle at C547-C549 and C550-C552. The letter set out that the assessor would meet with him “about 6 times” (C550), and the plan made it clear that there would be completion of the workbook over six sessions prior to a further session for the assessor to give F the finished assessment and go through it together and what might happen next (C547). Originally that final session was planned for 14th May 2025, the assessment initially being due to be filed on 16th May 2025. The chronology of actual appointments offered and achieved with F for the assessment is at C540-C541. The first planned session on 9th April was achieved, but the second session was cancelled by both parents. They told the assessor that they were visiting family in London, though F told me in his evidence during this hearing that this was because a family member was ill and this was the first time that this had been mentioned as the reason for them not being able to make the planned session. Session two was rearranged for 23rd April with an observation of Family Time with A taking place on 24th April. So far so good, but then F had to cancel the third planned session on 28th April as he as on site for work, which was re-arranged for 28th April but F had car trouble which also led to the rearranged session on 30th April being cancelled. I am not clear why those sessions could not take place remotely since that seems to have been a format that was offered later. It was re-arranged for 1st May, but the assessor then had to re-arrange as she was on a course, and the 2nd May at the parents’ home was then selected. Oddly, this is then cancelled because F still did not have a car, from which I can only assume that he was working away given what he said to the assessor about this at C245. It was rearranged to 7th May, F was still without a vehicle and thus it was rearranged to 8th May and did finally take place. The assessor then had to cancel the 14th May session due to a family emergency and by this point the deadline for filing had been extended by consent to 27th June 2025 and the fourth planned session took place on 2nd June. There then followed a period when the assessor told me that she had trouble making appointments for the final sessions with the parents, as set out at C540-C541 with the fifth and final session taking place on 19th June which, as she told me allowed her a matter of 8 days to write up the assessment prior to the date for filing and service. F’s evidence was that he thought all of the sessions had been completed, notwithstanding that there had only been four sessions completed by 2nd June, and that he promptly responded to texts and calls from the assessor trying to arrange further sessions. He produced screen shots of his texts and calls at C506-C508 covering the period in June when the assessor was trying to arrange the sessions. Despite telling me that he always responded promptly, it looks as if it took him a day to respond to the text message asking him if he could be free to complete the assessment on 18th June, and the social worker accommodated him getting stuck in traffic on 2nd June. The issues with completing all of the planned sessions fed into whether or not the assessor was able to see F with B and C, as she told me. She had access to the Local Authority case files, as her appendix 1 sets out (C258), and it is clear from her report as a whole that she was very aware of the children’s needs, personalities and relationships with each other and their parents. She also spoke to the then allocated social worker, children’s practitioner and D, in addition to A and the parents as she set out in her report at C239-C240. She also took into account the psychological assessment of F and noted that this identified concerns “in relation to his capacity to understand and respond to the risks in relation to the children. It was noted that F tended to minimise concerns and situations whilst accepting some responsibility, this remained at the very early stages and he would lay blame on others (C240-C241). The assessor noted in fairness to both parents that when they did attend sessions with her they engaged well and “seemed keen to complete the assessment and talk about the future and what they would like to do with the children” (C241).[46]The assessor was challenged in cross-examination about her comment that “whilst F describes a strong family network it is worth considering that the Local Authority has struggled to receive family members names and numbers to be considered as possible support and carers for the children” (C248). Whilst it appears that the paternal grandmother and paternal aunt were known and considered for assessment during the period from first issue of the proceedings to July 2025, it appears that others’ details were not provided by F and certainly not for any who may be able to participate in a Family Network Meeting directed to be held by no later than 31st March 2026 on 27th February until this was directed to be done by 4pm on 4th March 2026. For reasons that have not been made clear to anyone at this FH, the minutes of that Family Network Meeting were not filed until the hearing began. This is very unfortunate and ultimately not helpful to anyone involved in the case, however it did at least enable everyone to understand what had been offered by F’s family if he were to move to live closer to them. All of this does not, in my view, undermine the assessor’s basis for concluding that the Local Authority had struggled to receive details of family members as she said. On balance, her assessment of F’s parenting capability considering information gathered from both the five sessions undertaken and from Local Authority records and professionals, as well as the psychological assessment of F, was sufficient in my view to enable her to be able to reach a reliable, adequately evidenced conclusion about his inability to parent the children to a good enough standard. By far the most significant aspect of concern about F’s parenting is her conclusion that “F and M have not shown that they can mentalise their children and understand what they have experienced so far. I cannot evidence attunment (sic) or a willingness to consider this currently. I appreciate that accepting responsibility is hard but it is important for repair. The children need their parents to mentalise them to feel safe and loved. They need their parents to provide a safe and secure home to be able to grow and learn and aspire” (C255-C256). This echoes what Dr Bues noted about him: “significant concerns remain in relation to F’s capacity to understand and respond appropriately to risks in relation to the children. There have been long-standing and very significant concerns pertaining to neglect of the children across many areas and evidently F has in the past not acted to protect the children from these risks. In this assessment he tended to offer simplistic explanations, to minimise the situation or the concerns or to blame others including professionals. Whilst F could accept some responsibility, his thinking in this regard appears to be at an early stage and further acceptance and ownership is required for one to feel confident that F is likely to act differently in future” (E70).[47]As became clear during this FH, F has only accepted that he bore any responsibility for the neglect the children suffered while the hearing was underway. Mr Lorie put to the Guardian in cross examination that F accepted ‘50%’ responsibility – I did not note F saying that in his evidence in chief though he did accept this when questioned by Ms Wickham and, in fact, during his evidence he initially repeated in answer to questions from Ms Wilkins that he was not there in the house at all and was unaware of the conditions in the home. He also said that what he was responsible for was not giving up work sooner, though I did not hear any evidence of him really accepting his part in the neglect that the children suffered nor of understanding or accepting the impact of that on them. At best, as the Guardian noted in her evidence to me, his acceptance of his role in their neglect is recent and he still at times seems to seek to minimise his role so I am not sure that he does accept 50% as Mr Lorie suggested. All of which leads me to conclude that he is in the very early stages of acceptance and thus any changes to his parenting will not be likely to happen soon. As the Guardian also pointed out, whilst it is to his credit that he says he is willing to undertake any parenting courses, it is doubtful that he would benefit from any such courses whilst he still struggles to accept that there were deficits in his parenting beyond not being at home more. And, of course, on the evidence before me, the deficits in his parenting do go far beyond his physical absence from the house. As was suggested by the Guardian, he could have done more even whilst working away, such as checking with the school what was going on about attendance and doing what he repeatedly told professionals that he would do to clear and clean the house and ensure that the children got to appointments.[48]I was also very struck by his evidence about trying to instill routines and boundaries when he was in the house at weekends and on the occasional weeknight. This is striking because professionals noted repeatedly that there were not boundaries and routines in place during the period of Child Protection Planning, so it was more than simply these were only lacking during the working week, and it is perfectly possible for good enough parents to implement boundaries and routines even where one parent works away for periods of time during the week. Whilst I accept that F (as well as M) made some efforts to improve the conditions in the family home while the children were living with them, this was also insufficient to ensure that the children were living in a hygienic and safe environment. The pictures in section C relied upon by the Local Authority and taken during visits to the property are simply appalling and I did not find F credible when he told me that he had not seen the property in that state, even when I clarified whether he had seen the property on 3rd January 2025 since that was a Friday and the photos were taken on a day when he would normally have been there that afternoon or weekend.[49]I am thus not persuaded that, as submitted forcefully by Mr Perry on behalf of A in particular, that it would be safe to return any of the children to the care of F, whether that is all of the children or just A. The risks in relation to A are different in view of her age compared to B and C, but they are still risks and could not be mitigated by any support or Local Authority supervision given the absence of sufficient acceptance by F for what he has done to cause her harm in the past, and his lack of understanding of what he has to change and why.[50]The absence of accommodation is also a concerning factor but is not a determinative factor, I find. As was put by Mr Lorie when he questioned the social worker, accommodation could be resolved potentially with some assistance from the Local Authority. However, what is significant is that F has done remarkably little to date to resolve his accommodation himself (bearing in mind as well that much of his case was that he was not living at the home on his own case he has been without his own permanent accommodation for some years). He did produce a partially completed tenancy application form for a privately rented property which he submitted some time in August last year (C504), but as I noted he had not answered the question about whether or not he had County Court Judgments or other Adverse Credit History so it seems that application would have been returned to him to complete if it had been submitted. Apart from that, he told me that he had looked at and asked about numerous properties online, then he lost his job and seems not to have done more than have one phone conversation with someone in the housing department in the area that he would like to live. He understood from that phone call that he was unlikely to be a priority for public sector housing as a single man, something that is perhaps widely known in any event. He accepted when questioned by Ms Wilkins that he had not done any research into housing policy in the relevant local area, so did not know if he would be likely to be placed outside of the area in line with any local policy, what temporary housing might look like if he met the criteria for being housed, and what sort of waiting times might be involved. He also accepted he had made no enquiries about what housing benefit he may be able to claim. All in all, it seemed as if he had not done much to explore housing options and, I find, not as much as it would be reasonable to expect a good enough parent to have done if they hoped to have their children return to live with them. The issue of whether he could be housed in the area he prefers is also directly relevant to the aspect of family support, leaving aside any concerns about the appropriateness of multiple people being involved in parenting children who have heightened levels of need as a result of the neglect they have suffered. All of the evidence about his lack of action to progress housing underlined that F is at best only in the very early stages of acceptance of his part in the harm the children have suffered and what he needs to do to change things for the future, I find.[51]It was also submitted by Mr Lorie that the changes to F’s circumstances necessitate a further ISW parenting assessment if the court were not to be persuaded that it was safe to return any of the children to F’s care. The test for the court in considering this is, as I noted at the outset of this judgment, whether it is necessary to justly determine the issues in the case. The section 13(7) elements of the 2014 Act are also relevant, starting with any impact which giving permission would be likely to have on the welfare of the children concerned. In this case granting the application would extend proceedings and it would be an extension for more than the 10 weeks proposed for a parenting assessment since timetabling would need to include time for evidence in response and an addendum Final Analysis and Recommendations from the Guardian, which would suggest one may be looking at a minimum of around 16 weeks from experience. This also touches on 13(7)(f) since that requires the court to consider the impact which giving permission would be likely to have on the timetable for, and duration and conduct of, the proceedings. Whilst it was submitted by Mr Perry that A not being able to live with F would be contrary to her stated wishes and feelings, and this would be bound to be distressing and harmful for her as all accept, I am equally concerned about the adverse impact on her of prolonging proceedings when one of her first questions to me was when would she know the outcome of this FH. I am also mindful that permitting a further assessment of F also does not necessarily mean that the case would resolve in a way that would enable A to live with him, since a negative assessment would mean placement with him was not a possibility.[52]Addressing the other aspects of s13(7), this ISW assessment is sought to assess his sole parenting capacity, and I have already explored in some detail in this judgment the other evidence that is available at this point in relation to his parenting capacity. Overall, I am not persuaded that an ISW assessment of F’s parenting capability is necessary to enable me to determine justly whether placement of all or any of the children with him is a realistic prospect. There is sufficient evidence from the parenting assessment of him and the other professional evidence of social workers and the Guardian. Fundamentally, the only change in his circumstances since the completion of the last parenting assessment is that he is no longer working full time and he now accepts at the last minute that he was responsible for the harm that the children suffered. However, cessation of full time working on his own evidence seems to have been forced upon him rather than a conscious choice made with the welfare of the children in mind. His late acceptance of his role in the harm the children suffered is positive, but it is early days and still seems to be hedged around with minimisation and the sort of inability to appreciate the impact on the children that both Dr Bues and the parenting assessor identified in relation to him. His application for permission to instruct an ISW to conduct a parenting assessment of him is therefore refused.[53]The two realistic options before the court at this point are therefore to return the children to the care of F, with or without a Supervision Order (as submitted by Mr Perry), or for final care orders to be made endorsing the final care plans for them to remain in long term foster care. As I have noted earlier in this judgment, the latter option would be contrary to the wishes and feelings of A and B, and at A’s age her wishes and feelings carry more weight than for a younger child such as B. However, I have also previously noted that A and B’s understanding is also to be considered in relation to their wishes and feelings and the evidence in relation to both, primarily from the Guardian, shows that they are fiercely loyal to their parents and clearly love them very much so it is hardly surprising that they want to live with them. This makes it more unlikely that either would express reservations about living with F, or even that they would understand that there may be risks arising from living with him. I am also very aware that placement in long term foster care also brings risks, primarily around instability if a foster carer were to give notice or a placement to otherwise end sooner than planned, but also it brings with it a level of state scrutiny and ongoing involvement that is not the same as for a child living with their birth family. That scrutiny and ongoing involvement can be very intrusive and potentially harmful for children subject to it. It is also not currently known where B and C will be placed long term since the would have to move from their current placement. It would also mean that A would be separated from B and C, and vice versa, which would itself bring a sense of loss for them, just as they will experience loss at not being cared for by F. To some extent that can be mitigated by sibling and parent contact, though I accept that is not a replacement for living with family.[54]The other option is that of placement with F, which would be in line with A and B’s stated wishes and feelings, would probably be what C would want if he were old enough to be able to articulate independent views, would mean they are placed with their birth family and would thus avoid them feeling loss. However, this option would bring an unmanageable level of risk for them all or just A alone based on my findings earlier since it is highly likely that they would not receive the sort of reparative parenting that they need, nor even just good enough parenting. It is also highly likely that they would again be exposed to neglect in relation to ensuring that their needs are prioritised since F is not currently able to mentalise them or their needs. It would also bring a potential level of instability if placement with him were to break down, and there is the added uncertainty about where he would be living and what support (family and professional) he may be able and willing to access as a result. Given his lack of insight about his parenting deficits, emphasised when asked questions by Ms Wilkins and Ms Wickham and he could not identify any aspects that he needed to improve, it also seems unlikely that he would access support when needed, I find.[55]In light of my findings, I am satisfied that the children’s welfare requires final orders to be made now, and that final care orders with plans for them to remain in long term foster care for the remainder of their childhoods are in their welfare interests at this point. I will therefore grant full care orders to the Local Authority and endorse the final care plans. However, there remains one issue in relation to contact under those care plans. An amended contact plan was produced at the outset of this final hearing, proposing that there should be supervised contact between all three children and their parents once per month for a duration of 2.5 hours at a venue situated midway between all of the children’s placements. That aspect is now in line with the Guardian’s recommendations. For A, it is proposed that she should have additional supervised contact with M or both parents, noting that she has particularly asked about spending time with her M on her own, to take place either in advance of full family contacts or elsewhere during the school holidays for 1.5 hours. She would also be able to have indirect mobile phone contact with her parents. A would like to see her parents weekly as she does now. In terms of sibling contact, this is now expressed as “The Local Authority will promote additional sibling contact which can be arranged between the children’s respective foster carers. This will be explored once a long-term foster placement for B and C has been identified.” Both M and F sought some additional video contact for B and C with their parents in between the monthly face to face sessions. Mr Powell for M asked if there could be a recital setting out an expectation of this being a minimum of twelve times per year, however the current allocated social worker was not willing to commit to this, stating that the children would need time to settle into their final placements, and also said the same about A and her request for weekly contact. The Guardian agreed with the need for A to adjust to the idea that she was not returning home, despite the plan for her to remain in a placement that she is now very well settled in, but was of the view that there was no welfare reason for B and C not to see their siblings at least six times per year in addition to the 12 times per year sessions with their parents. In terms of any additional video contact for B and C and their parents, she was of the view that this could be more difficult for foster carers as it was more intrusive, literally enabling virtual contact in their own home and may be best explored once a long term placement had been identified. She did agree with the suggestion that setting out what is expected of prospective foster carers for B and C in relation to face to face contact could be helpful to those foster carers in knowing what they would be required to commit to.[56]On balance, considering the evidence of the social worker and Guardian, I am satisfied that it would not be in A’s welfare interests to require weekly contact between her and her parents while she has to adjust to living in long term foster care. The adverse impact on her of not following her wishes in this regard can be mitigated by the proposed additional contact with either her M or both of her parents alone as well as the agreed mobile phone indirect contact. However, I would expect the Local Authority to keep this under active review with a view to seeking to increase it once A has come to terms with the outcome of these proceedings. In terms of sibling contact, given the strength of sibling bonds as set out in the Together and Apart evidence, and the evidence of the Guardian about there not being a welfare reason to reduce this from what was in the February 2026 final care plans, I would invite the Local Authority to amend the final care plans to reflect that it is expected that this should take place for a minimum of six times per year both now and once a permanent foster care placement is identified for them as that will help long term foster carers understand what is expected of them. The Guardian was also not opposed in her oral evidence to there potentially being additional video contact between B and C and their parents pending a change of placement. I would therefore invite the Local Authority to consider that there should be additional video contact between B and C and their parents at a frequency of monthly at this stage, pending review at the point of any future placement change for them, and will direct that this should also be a recital to the order.

CONCLUSIONS

[57]This has been an exceptionally long running and troubling case. It has taken some 66 weeks to conclude by the date of judgment. In the context of children who suffered years of chronic neglect whilst being subject to Local Authority scrutiny, I am somewhat at a loss to understand why it took until January 2025 for proceedings to be issued, and then quite what has happened with some of the evidence that should have been filed and served in these proceedings. I appreciate that changes of social workers and perhaps of lawyers responsible for the case may have contributed to that, but it is really not helpful for appendices to the parenting assessment not to be filed and served when they were provided by the assessor, nor is it helpful for there to be (apparently) different versions of the Together and Apart assessment which lead to a dramatic change in final care planning for C at the beginning of this year. It is equally not helpful for orders not to record why a party has not complied with a previous direction to file evidence. I have also noted that, aside from the issue around self-harm, there are some learning points for the child practitioner in this case around her use of language, though that does not in any way excuse the anger, aggression and unfortunate comments that F made on 19th March 2026. I would also urge F to reflect on what I have said in this judgment about his limited insight and acceptance, and to work to improve those for the sake of his children. Finally, I was asked to consider whether the Local Authority should be encouraged by way of a recital to consider funding therapy for M if she is unable to access that via the NHS. Given that there will be ongoing face to face contact between M and the children, and she is herself a vulnerable individual, I would encourage the Local Authority to at least consider that funding if she cannot access NHS therapy since that would benefit the children if she is able to tackle her issues as recommended by Dr Bues. APPENDIX FINAL THRESHOLD On the relevant date, namely 20 January 2025, A, B, and C were suffering, or were likely to suffer, significant harm. The harm or likelihood of harm was attributable to the care given, or likely to be given, to them not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give a child. The harm suffered or likely to be suffered is in the category of neglect, with some elements of physical and emotional harm as accepted below.

FINAL THRESHOLD

[1]Physical Welfare and Nutrition(a) results of B’s blood test taken on 18 October 2024 showed B was deficient in iron. The mother did not provide him with an iron supplement as advised by the Consultant Paediatrician in October 2024 until it was prescribed by the GP on 20 December 2024. This put B at risk of nutritional neglect. [E1-7/E53/E54/GP Records(b) (B) (internal page 5/40)]. (b) The results of C’s blood test taken on 18 October 2024 showed that C was deficient in iron and vitamin D. The mother did not provide him with an iron supplement as advised by the Consultant Paediatrician in October 2024 until it was prescribed to C by the GP on 20 December 2024. This put C at risk of nutritional neglect [E1-7/C185/GP Records(c) (C) (internal page 9-10/59-60)].[2]Dental and Medical Care(a) B and C had extensive tooth decay on multiple teeth as a result of their mother not consistently ensuring that the children cleaned their teeth properly. This caused the children to suffer neglect and a risk of physical harm through pain [E3/E4/E6/E7/E13/C111-C114/ GP Records(b) (B) (internal page 18)]. 3. Hygiene and Home Conditions (a) B and C’s physical hygiene welfare needs were not met consistently met by the mother including B and C, at times, having unclean and long nails and dirty feet. This resulted in B and C suffering neglect [C109-C114/E7/E1]. (b) The mother was not able to consistently ensure that the children were living in a clean and hygienic home which resulted in the home, at times, having unclean floors, toilet and fridge shelves; clutter and clutter within a garden rending it inaccessible to the children due to it being unsafe. This caused the children to suffer neglect [C38-C48/C50-C84].[4]Educational Neglect (a) The mother was unable to adequately support the children in attending school resulting in their education needs being neglected as follows [106/C107/C146/C86]: ◦ A’s school attendance was 11.8% prior to her removal from foster care [C85]. ◦ B’s school attendance was 71.25%. B was taken to school by his older brother D (whom should have been in college) at times as opposed to his mother [C107]; ◦ C’s nursery attendance was 56.82% between 2nd October 2024 and 16th January 2025 [C148]. 5. Failure to protect/continued neglect (a) The father was aware of the neglect of the children; he was a regular visitor to the family home, was in attendance at Child Protection Conferences, and was a member of the Core Group. The father failed to take sufficient effective steps to prevent or remedy the neglect of the children. After the father moved back into the family home in October 2024 the home conditions continued to be unhygienic and the children continued to suffer educational neglect through poor school attendance. [C50 – C84/C85/C109/C148] 19 March 2026 HHJ Eleanor Owens 27th April 2026