GCC v M & Ors [2026] EWFC 95 (B)

IN THE FAMILY COURT CASE NO: BS25C50168[2026] EWFC 95 (B)Venue SITTING AT BRISTOLGCCApplicantM1st RespondentF2 nd RespondentA and B(through their guardian)3 rd and 4th RespondentsApproved JudgmentChristopher Rodwell (instructed by A Local Authority) for applicantAlice Darian (instructed by WSP Solicitors) for motherColin Douglas (instructed by Langley Wellington Solicitors) for fatherPaul Gammon (Child Care LLP) for childrenHearing Hearing dates: 10 to 13 March 2026This judgment was handed down on 13 March 2026by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail at a hearing.This judgment was given in private. The judge gives permission for this version of the judgment to be published on condition that (irrespective of what is contained in the judgment) in any published version of this judgment the anonymity of the children and members of their family must be strictly preserved. All persons, including representatives of the media and legal bloggers, must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so may be a contempt of court.Judge’s name: Her Honour Judge CopeIntroduction
[1]This is the local authority’s application for public law orders in respect of two children A (a boy) aged nearly four and B (a girl) two years 5 months. Proceedings were issued on 9 June 2025. The proceedings are in week 40 and well beyond the 26 week statutory time limit.[2]For the purpose of this final hearing, the local authority is represented by Mr Rodwell, the mother by Ms Darian, the father (who has not attended) by Mr Douglas and the children by Mr Gammon through their guardian. I am grateful to them all for their assistance. Background[3]The family has been known to Children’s Services for nearly all of their lives. A was placed on a Child Protection Plan from May 2022 to January 2023 (due to his half-sister having suffered significant injuries that were deemed to be non-accidental). In November 2022 A was found to have a bruise to his cheek. The Plan was reduced to a Child in Need Plan from January 2023 to April 2023. The children were then placed on a Child Protection Plan from February 2024 to October 2025. It was reduced to a Child in Need Plan once again. However, pre-proceedings were initiated in March 2025. Proceedings commenced in June 2025. Shortly before this time (9 May 2025) the mother started to work with GDASS. The work continued over a period of nine weeks.[4]The concerns relate to domestic abuse, instability within the parents’ relationship, failure to protect, the father’s mental health and his cannabis use.[5]Sadly, whilst the care plan until January of this year was for the children to remain living with their mother under a 12 month supervision order, the local authority changed that plan when it became aware that the father was having telephone and video calls with the children. A subsequent analysis of the mother’s telephone revealed that she was also in an intimate relationship with an individual who has been known in these proceedings as G. These issues have seen a shift from a relatively ‘hands-off’ order to care and placement orders which if made would sever all legal ties between the parents and their children. That is a dramatic change and one that requires careful scrutiny and consideration on my part. In this respect, I remind myself that the children have remained in their mother’s care throughout these proceedings. It is an unusual position for a parent to find themselves.[6]The mother seeks for the children to remain in her care. She will accept any order for this to happen. In the alternative, the mother asserts that the evidence is so fundamentally flawed that the case should be adjourned with further assessments to be undertaken and a proper balancing exercise of the children remaining with her against the detriments of removal. The mother’s case is supported by the father. The guardian supports the orders sought by the local authority. The legal framework[7]When asked to make public law orders there are two main questions. First, is the threshold criteria for making a care order under Section 31 Children Act 1989 satisfied? Secondly, if so, what order, if any, should the court make?[8]Section 31 (2) provides:
‘A court may only make a care order or supervision order if it is satisfied (a) that the child concerned is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm and (b) that the harm, or likelihood of harm, is attributable to (i) the care given to the child, or likely to be given to him if the order were not made, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give to him; or (ii) the child’s being beyond parental control.’
[9]The determination of whether the threshold criteria are fulfilled involves considering the position at the time that protective measures were taken (when the proceedings started). By contrast, welfare issues must be based on the totality of information available to the court and, unlike threshold issues, it is necessary to conduct a present-day evaluation of what is best for the child.[10]The burden of proving that the threshold is met rests with the local authority. The standard of proof is the civil standard.[11]The standard of proof is the balance of probabilities (Re B [2008] UKHL 35).[12]Findings of fact must be based on evidence including inferences which can be properly drawn from the evidence (Re A (A Child) (Fact-finding hearing: Speculation) [2011] EWCA Civ 12).[13]Findings of fact must not be based on hypothesis. The court must avoid speculation, particularly in situations where there is a gap in the evidence (Re A (Fact finding hearing: Speculation) [2011] EWCA Civ 12). The parents have to prove nothing and the court must be careful to ensure that it does not reverse the burden of proof (Lancashire v R [2013] EWHC 3064 (Fam)).[14]The evidence of the parents and any other carers is of the utmost importance. It is essential that the court forms a clear assessment of their credibility and reliability. They must have the fullest opportunity to take part in the hearing and the court is likely to place considerable weight on the evidence and the impression it forms of them (see Re W and another (Non-accidental injury) [2003] FCR 346).[15]As observed by Mostyn J in Lancashire County Council v R [2013] EWHC 3064 (Fam) (citing Onassis and Calogeropoulos v Vergottis [1968] 2 Lloyd's Rep 403, per Lord Pearce and A County Council v M and F [2011] EWHC 1804 (Fam) [2012] 2 FLR 939 the assessment of credibility generally involves wider problems than mere demeanor. Contemporaneous documents are of the utmost importance.[16]It is common for witnesses in these cases to tell lies in the course of the investigation and the hearing. The court must be careful to bear in mind that a witness may lie for many reasons, such as shame, misplaced loyalty, panic, fear and distress, and the fact that a witness has lied about some matters does not mean that he or she has lied about everything (see R v Lucas [1981] QB 720). In Re A-B-C (Children) [2021] EWCA 451 Macur LJ provided updated guidance on the assessment of credibility.[17]If the court determines that the Lucas direction is called for, or is invited to proceed on that basis, submissions should be made to identify(i) the deliberate lie(s) relied upon;(ii) the significant issue to which it/they relate(s); and(iii) on what basis it can be determined that the only explanation for the lie(s) is guilt (Re A, B, C (Children) [2021] EWCA Civ 451, Macur LJ).[18]Any judge appraising witnesses in the emotionally charged atmosphere of a contested family dispute should warn themselves to guard against an assessment solely by virtue of their behaviour in the witness box and to expressly indicate that they have done so (Re M (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 1147).[19]The need for caution in how the court evaluates the credibility of a witness and the reliability of their evidence by reference to demeanour and the need for caution in the weight to be given to demeanour in the evaluation of evidence was also articulated by Leggatt LJ in Sri Lanka v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWCA 1391.[20]As to the second question, the finding that the threshold is satisfied is the gateway to the making of orders in respect of A and B.[21]In determining the appropriate order, the court must follow the approach set out in Section 1 Children Act 1989. I bear firmly in mind that the children’s welfare is my paramount concern (section 1(1) Children Act 1989). I remind myself of the provisions of the welfare checklist at section 1(3) and also what is known as the no delay principle set out at section 1(2).[22]I must be satisfied that any orders I make are lawful, necessary, proportionate and reasonable to address the children’s unfortunate predicament. The granting of a care order let alone endorsing a plan for adoption would represent a significant curtailment of the rights of the parents and the children under Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights.[23]It is of fundamental importance that there is discipline in the approach to welfare issues in care (and placement) proceedings. The court is not a court of social engineering. The court does not decide welfare issues by considering whether, on an individual judge’s analysis, a child might be ‘better off’ in care (or with adopters). As Hedley J said in the 2007 case of Re L:
‘society must be willing to tolerate very diverse standards of parenting, including the eccentric, the barely adequate and the inconsistent. It follows too that children will inevitably have both very different experiences of parenting and very unequal consequences flowing from it. It means that some children will experience disadvantage and harm, while others flourish in atmospheres of loving security and emotional stability. These are the consequences of our fallible humanity and it is not the provenance of the state to spare children all the consequences of defective parenting. In any event, it simply could not be done.’
[24]In analysing the local authority’s plan for the children to be adopted I am obliged to consider section 1 Adoption and Children Act 2002. My paramount consideration is their welfare throughout their lives (section 1(2)). Again, I take into account the fact that delay is likely to prejudice their welfare. There is again a checklist of factors to be taken into account set out in section 1(4). In addition, both sections 1(3)(g) of the 1989 Act and section 1(6) of the 2002 Act require the court to have regard to the range of orders available.[25]The court may only make a placement order if either the children’s parents consent, or the court dispenses with the parents’ consent. Section 52 provides that the court cannot dispense with a parent’s consent unless it is satisfied either that the parent cannot be found or is incapable of giving consent or that the welfare of the child requires that the parent’s consent be dispensed with.[26]Again, I must have regard to the children’s article 8 rights and those of their parents.[27]With regard to the making of a placement or adoption order there is further assistance from the Supreme Court in the case of Re: B (a child) [2013] UKSC 33 followed by decisions of the Court of Appeal particularly in Re B-S [2013] EWCA Civ 1146 but also Re: G (a child) [2013] EWCA Civ 965. These cases all confirm that a placement for adoption is ‘a very extreme thing’ and ‘a last resort’ to be approved only when ‘nothing else will do’.[28]The court must weigh up the realistic options and submit them to a thorough analysis, weighing up the advantages and disadvantages of each option. In Re R there was much discussion about what is meant by ‘realistic’. The then President described this as ‘fundamental’. Full consideration is required only with respect to those options which are ‘realistically possible’. Re B-S does not require that every stone has to be unturned, and the ground exhaustively examined before coming to a conclusion that a particular option is not realistic.[29]The Supreme Court case of Re H-W (Children), Re H-W (Children No 2) [2022] UKSC 17 concerned the proportionality of care orders which must be necessary to meet the needs of the child having regard to the advantages and disadvantages of each available option. Various factors were set out to assist the court in answering this question.[30]In Re N [2025] EWCA Civ 1541 Jackson LJ stated (paragraph 42): ‘In Re F (above), I suggested that in assessing the risk of future harm, the court should consider: the type of harm that may arise; the likelihood of it arising; the severity of the consequences if it arose; and what risk reduction steps can be taken. Having reached its conclusion about those matters, the court should make a comparative of the welfare advantages and disadvantages of each course of action and finally step back and check that any interference with rights arising from its proposed decision is necessary and proportionate. In summary: in a case that turns on risk of harm, does the risk justify the remedy?’.[31]I have also considered T (children: risk assessment) [2025] EWCA Civ 93 and Re F (a child) (placement[32]In R and C (Adoption or Fostering) [2024] EWCA Civ 1302 Baker LJ referred to the likely template for contact arrangements post adoption which should be set at the placement order stage noting that the court should have regard not only to the short-term contact arrangements required in the pre-adoption stage, but also in setting the course for the maintenance of family relations over the longer term if it is in the child’s best interests and for orders to include recitals in respect of post-adoption contact.[33]In Re S (Placement Order Contact) [2025] EWCA Civ 823 the mother had appealed following a contested hearing in which the judge made a placement for adoption order but declined to make an order under the Adoption and Children Act 2002, section 26(2)(b) for sibling contact. The appeal was dismissed, with the court affirming the lower court’s decision not to impose a contact order. Sir Andrew McFarlane, giving the lead judgment in the Court of Appeal, gave guidance as to the management of post placement order contact. The use of Section 26 orders to signal future arrangements beyond adoption was contemplated in cases where the child’s need for contact prevailed. In some cases where adoption was a pressing need for the child, the negative impact of such an order in the search for an adopter was a relevant consideration. The hearing[34]I have considered the bundles of papers and heard from the social worker, the mother and the guardian. It was expected that the father would also give evidence but he has not attended this hearing. Why he failed to attend is unclear but he has failed to answer bail and it was suggested that this might be why he has not attended. Reference was also made to his mental health being poor. Further, the mother’s friend has not attended. Her statement is relevant in respect of the use of the mother’s telephone and whether messages have been sent by the mother or her friend. I say at this stage that I attach very little weight to her statement when she has not made herself available to be challenged.[35]As for my impression of the witnesses, it was clear to me that the social worker has given the case much thought. She said she agonised about her decision. She was a witness who gave her evidence in an extremely balanced and fair way. The mother was a calm and measured witness who did her best to assist the court. She was emotional when she started to give evidence but quickly composed herself and answered questions of her appropriately. She made appropriate concessions although it might be said that in the face of the evidence before the court she had little choice. The guardian was a clear witness who is clear in her recommendation to the court. The factual issues[36]From a factual perspective, the issues in this case stem from the parents’ domestically abusive relationship. Both parents have suffered adverse experiences in their childhoods. They have not experienced loving and nurturing care. The mother is young at only 25 years of age and was in a relationship with the father for a long time. Sadly, she experienced domestic abuse prior to her relationship with the father (there is reference in the papers to domestic abuse being present in the mother’s first significant relationship when she was just 16 but no domestic abuse in her second relationship). Whilst there are concerns about substance misuse and poor mental health on the part of the father, there is no suggestion of such in respect of the mother. From her perspective, this is not a case of what is often referred to as the toxic trio.[37]In respect of the relationship between the parents, the mother says she ended the relationship in March 2025. That was to her credit and was plainly child focused. She moved to a safe house and subsequently to an address unknown to the father.[38]There is no dispute that the mother attended eight or nine sessions with GDASS in the Summer of 2025. Those sessions were three hours each in duration. They covered safety planning; definition of domestic abuse and its dynamics; impact of domestic abuse; impact of domestic abuse on children; understanding emotions; self-esteem; moving on and managing emotions; boundaries and assertiveness and healthy relationships.[39]It was thought that the mother had taken on board the lessons she had learnt from those sessions. There was a Parent Assess parenting assessment undertaken by an independent social worker in June 2025. That was supportive of the mother caring for the children albeit with some caveats to which I return.[40]There were other positive signs in that on 3 July 2025 the mother stopped the father having contact with the children. This was a further important step and indicated that the mother could understand the problems of being involved in a domestically abusive relationship.[41]All was going well with the mother and children until the end of October 2025. At this time, the social worker received a voicemail from the maternal grandmother. She and her partner could be heard arguing along with the voice of an unidentified female. During this exchange the maternal grandmother’s partner stated that the parents were in contact and the father was aware of the family’s address (the father’s knowledge of the mother’s address has not been established). A few days later the mother was asked about the voicemail and whether she had been in contact with the father. She denied any such communication.[42]The father then contacted the social worker to say that he had been in contact with the mother and had spoken to his children on the telephone. The mother denied that this was the case. The mother then alleged that the father continued to telephone her from an unknown number. However, the father said that it was the mother who had been initiating contact with him. The mother contacted the police and the father was subsequently arrested. She also made historical allegations of domestic abuse and as part of the police investigation the father’s telephone was seized.[43]A then confirmed that he had been talking to his father on the telephone which the mother accepted. The mother said that telephone contact had commenced after some distressing social media comments concerning B. The mother also confirmed that there had been telephone contact when she was struggling to manage A’s behaviour. She said she had not told the local authority as the father threatened to ruin her life if she did so.[44]The local authority sought analysis of the mother’s telephone to see whether it would shed light upon the contact between the parents. It did. It confirmed that the father had had telephone conversations and video calls with the children. Given that the mother knew that A was scared of his father, had put his hands by his ears in fear and hid behind the sofa it was remarkable that she thought that this was child focused. In the parenting assessment of the mother, the independent social worker made reference to previous concerns about A normalising his father’s behaviour. Of course, during this time, the local authority was of the view that no contact was happening between the father and the children and the social worker wanted to work with the father so that letters could be sent to the children. It is hardly a surprise that the father did not embark upon this work – he did not need to.[45]The mother has set out her account in further witness statements. She accepts contacting the father through a friend’s social media account she says due to threats to B. She says she needed to be sure whether those threats had anything to do with the father. She also accepts calling the father asking for payment of money and that she did not seek guidance from the local authority about this. She accepts face timing the father to arrange for his belongings to be collected. She accepts A had indirect contact with the father as the father would help with his misbehaviour. The mother says that she has subsequently blocked the father. She did not tell anybody as she was worried she would be found out. She says at times the father has withheld his caller ID but when she realised who it was she hung up. On one occasion she says the father threatened to harm and kill her. On another occasion she answered the telephone and once she realised it was the father she hung up. On another occasion her friend answered the telephone.[46]Not only was the father having some form of contact with the children, but the phone disclosure revealed that the mother was in contact with an individual called G. G is somebody she met within a matter of weeks of completing the domestic abuse work to which I have referred. I pause at this stage to observe that the mother had also undertaken domestic abuse work in 2024 (although at a time when she was in a relationship with the father) and the social worker’s evidence was that she was having frequent discussions with her about the work the mother had undertaken.[47]G is a risky individual who has spent time in prison due to domestic abuse against his former partner. His children have local authority involvement in their lives. G was just the sort of person the mother should have avoided. The initial account of the mother was that he was just a friend and they both helped out with regard to each other’s children.[48]In December 2025 the police confirmed that G was a high-risk perpetrator of domestic abuse. The mother confirmed that she would no longer be caring for his son. However, a subsequent unannounced visit in December revealed the contrary to be the position.[49]There is a further witness statement from the mother in which she sought to clarify the position. More concessions are made than previously such as her contact with G and that they had sexual intercourse on at least one occasion.[50]Very little of this was accepted by the local authority. The social worker says the telephone analysis demonstrates the frequency and duration of the mother’s telephone calls and FaceTime with G which started in August 2025. The contact was happening on an almost daily basis which she says evidences the intensity of the relationship. This is also the case for the messages. In addition, there was ongoing contact between the mother and father.[51]The mother now accepts the position in respect of the father’s contact with the children. I pause at this stage to observe that there is reference to the mother referring in a message to wanting to co-parent with the father. Caution is required about that message in particular.[52]As for G, there is no need for me to refer to the individual messages. They were put to the mother in cross-examination and I have considered them. An analysis of the mother’s telephone clearly shows an intimate relationship even if the mother maintains that it was not an official relationship. They express their love for one another and clearly had strong feelings. The mother accepts that they had sexual intercourse at least once but she cannot remember if it was more frequent. A search on her telephone suggests she was worried about being pregnant. In my view the mother minimised the relationship with G which is plain from her own messages to him. Further, I am satisfied that she knew he had been to prison. In one of her own messages in August 2025 she said that he was not ‘going down again’. I am satisfied that she knew that the social worker would want to know so that she could carry out the appropriate checks.[53]The consequences of these actions shall be considered in course but the mother’s case is that she was unclear as to exactly what the local authority expected of her; the children have not been harmed; she has acted appropriately since and she will not act in this way again. Importantly, if she considered her actions to be of no consequence, why was she not open with the social worker?[54]The mother has plainly lied about her involvement with the father and G. She concealed information from the social worker. Is her behaviour and lies a barrier to the mother being able to care for her children? The mother[55]There are many positives in respect of the mother. The social worker was quick to give credit to the mother for being responsive to having challenging conversations. She was also quick to acknowledge the positives about the children who she described as wonderful. She acknowledged that the children are meeting their milestones. Although there have been some recent concerns about the home conditions the social worker was not overly troubled by this. On the whole the children are thriving and they have secure attachments with their mother. Her main concern is about the children’s safety as a result of them being exposed to domestic abuse (reports of domestic abuse have been a significant feature with neighbours reporting abuse as long ago as February 2023). However, she accepts that no concerns have been raised by A’s pre-school and the health visitor describes B as doing beautifully.[56]The social worker told me that when the mother and children moved from the area to a safe house the children came out of their shells, they were engaged and more confident. The parenting assessment of the mother was positive but there were concerns about the potential for contact between the parents. She accepts that following the threat the mother says the father made in November there has been no further contact between the parents or at least no evidence of such. It is also acknowledged that the mother reported the father to the police and she is supporting their investigation. I pause to observe that this must be viewed in the context of the cat being out of the bag not only in respect of the children having contact with the father but also in respect of the mother’s relationship with G. From a timing perspective, it seems that it was only when this relationship was on the rocks and the local authority had knowledge of her contact with the father that she reported the father to the police.[57]I sensed the social worker’s understandable disappointment that the mother had not felt able to be honest with her about her contact with the father or her relationship with G. She must have felt let down by the mother with whom she thought she had a good relationship. Her expectation was that the mother would have kept her informed to enable her to assess the way forward as when the concerns regarding G were known to her she would have wanted to have implemented safety planning. Had she been told that he was staying overnight she would have told the mother that this could not happen. She was not aware for example that he had a key to the mother’s property. Even in December at the Child in Need meeting the mother was saying that he was just a friend. At this time the social worker had not seen the telephone disclosure. It was the content of the telephone disclosure that saw the care plan change - this was just before Christmas. Despite the concerns she acknowledges that nothing extra was put in place in terms of protecting the children’s safety but was keen to emphasise that there were ongoing visits. These continued at 10 to 20 day intervals. There were no further unannounced visits after the mother was discovered to be looking after G’s child in December. The social worker said there were also meetings and support for the mother. She said she had made it absolutely clear to the mother that G was not allowed to be in the home and the mother was not to care for his son. Further work around domestic abuse was not offered to the mother as she had done extensive work in 2024 and 2025 which had been followed up with ongoing discussions.[58]The social worker acknowledges that there has been no physical harm to the children and indeed no obvious impact in respect of their indirect contact with the father. However, she is really worried given that A has expressed a real fear of his father. If the children remain in the care of the mother she is concerned that it will happen again and the emotional harm A will then suffer. She said it is particularly sad given that the mother knows the impact of domestic abuse on herself and the children. The mother has done a lot of work over the last couple of years but this has still not prevented her from being vulnerable. It is a worrying pattern of harm that the social worker is concerned will continue.[59]These two matters are significant for the social worker and demonstrate that the mother has not been honest. It has been a difficult decision for the social worker to reconsider the plan for the children but on balance she is not of the view that they can stay with their mother and the risk of harm tips in favour of care and placement orders being made for the children. However, she was clear that the children should remain together and she also supports a contact order being made for the mother.[60]The guardian agreed that the children are meeting their milestones and in some respects are thriving. She was less positive about the mother and the children but acknowledged that she did not have the same knowledge of the children as the social worker. She referred to A’s kicking out at the mother when she saw the mother at her home. Ms Darian asserts that the guardian was speculating about the evidence of harm drawing on this one visit.[61]At paragraph 44 of her final analysis the guardian says this:
‘Sadly, A has expressed anger, and I watched him kick mother at my recent visit and he presented as dysregulated and sadder than previous contacts with him. Mother’s dishonesty would have led to confusion, and it has been harmful for both A and B. It will have impacted on engagement with the protective professionals of the social worker and staff at the nursery because of inconsistent messages he was receiving around safe adults. Therefore, limiting the support of outside agencies as an additional safeguard for A and also B when she starts preschool.’
[62]In her oral evidence the guardian referred to the children suffering significant immediate harm. Ms Darian invites me to find that this is incorrect. In my view it would be a stretch too far to form that view in light of all the other evidence available to me which includes how well the children are doing. Further, if the guardian was right in this respect, then I ask why has nothing been done to bolster the placement or seek the removal of the children from their mother? The fact that proceedings were already underway would not be a reason to take no action if the children were suffering as she says. This needs to be considered in the context of the mother’s parenting assessment which I address in due course.[63]In short, the guardian concludes that the children have been exposed to immediate significant harm and as a result of the mother’s dishonesty the risk cannot be mitigated. The first question - threshold[64]The parents accept that threshold is crossed and there is an agreed document in this respect which can be attached to the court order. The document includes an incident when the father was at the mother’s property when the mother and children were not present. For the avoidance of doubt, I confirm that threshold is crossed and on the relevant date both children were suffering and were also likely to suffer significant harm. The harm being not just emotional harm but physical harm too. The second question – the order[65]I turn next to the second question and the orders I should make. In this respect the welfare checklist requires consideration. The welfare checklist[66]A has said that he wishes to remain living with his mother. He does not want to see his father and his behaviour indicates that he is scared of him. However, he has also made some positive comments about his father and he appears to be somewhat confused. B is too young to express her wishes and feelings. No doubt she would want to be cared for by her mother if her needs could be met and she was safe. She has indicated that she wants to see her father.[67]The children need all of their needs to be met by their carer upon whom they are entirely dependent to meet their physical, emotional and educational needs. They do appear to be meeting their milestones and have been described as bright children. This is particularly so for A. A has demonstrated that he has been exposed to domestic abuse and harmed by it. He is fearful of his father. He can act out. B swears at times.[68]The children need decisions to be made without further delay. They have been used to living with their mother and if this changes it will be a significant adjustment for them. They have not had direct contact with their father since July 2025.[69]Both children are of White British heritage.[70]I have already referred to the harm the children have suffered. The local authority and guardian say that there remains a real risk that they will suffer further harm if they remain in the mother’s care. This is a significant issue and one to which I return.[71]The father has not engaged with the local authority to address its concerns about him. There is evidence that he continues to use cannabis and there has been a lack of engagement with drug support services. This can be seen from the statements of Ms T. Further, his lack of engagement has been apparent with probation services as can be seen from the witness statement of Miss H. The local authority’s initial witness statement sets out the extensive support offered to the father. I do not overlook that the father did eventually engage with healthy relationships work in March 2025. However, he was unable to recognise that his behaviour was emotionally abusive towards the mother. There have been some recent improvements in respect of his dealing with the social worker.[72]A parenting assessment was undertaken of the father by an independent social worker in June 2025. It raised significant concerns about the father subjecting the mother to domestic abuse. The father referred to himself as an emotional abuser but acknowledged that he had thrown some items around the house and raised his voice. In addition, there was some acknowledgement in respect of his behaviour towards a former girlfriend. The totality of the evidence before the parenting assessor was that the father poses a significant risk of harm and is an individual with anger management issues as well as being a perpetrator of domestic abuse. The assessor was particularly concerned in the event of the parents rekindling their relationship as in this eventuality the independent social worker stated that the local authority may need to make an application for interim care orders.[73]I have already referred to the father’s contact with the children being terminated in the summer of last year following incidents that occurred during supervised contact.[74]As for the mother, she has undertaken various pieces of work as required of her by the local authority. She too has been assessed by an independent social worker. At that time the real concern in respect of the mother related to domestic abuse. Otherwise, it was not thought that there was a significant risk of harm to the children in her care. If the mother remained separated from the father then it was considered that she had the capacity to care for the children. However, this was the key to the children remaining in her care.[75]The initial recommendation was that the children would remain in the care of the mother under a 12 month supervision order. That was the position in October 2025. This recommendation was supported by the guardian. I have set out the position elsewhere with regard to the change in stance on the part of the local authority. The position now is that the local authority’s case is that neither parent can care for the children. The maternal and paternal grandparents are not able to care for the children and there has been no challenge to the local authority’s conclusion in this respect.[76]There is an issue as to what was meant by the independent social worker about the mother having a relationship with the father. In his assessment he refers to the mother denying being in a relationship but the father indicating at the time of the assessment that they were ‘still in some form of relationship’. The assessor went on to say that he would be greatly worried if the parents were in a relationship.[77]In the section headed ‘recommendations’ the independent social worker states: Paragraph 5.1 ‘Although there continues to be uncertainties surrounding the nature of M’s relationship with F, and whether she and the children are having contact with him outside of what has been recommended by the Local Authority, I do not believe there is evidence to suggest that the children are being placed at an increased level of risk or harm (this is in reference to what is highlighted in the Social Work Chronology).’[78]The independent social worker concluded that there was a sufficient level of ‘safe uncertainty’ and stated: Paragraph 5.2 ‘For example, I believe there are sufficient strengths and safety factors with M’s parenting which mitigate the uncertainties surrounding whether M and F are maintaining some form of contact. That said, if M decides to rekindle the relationship with F, or if M allows F into the family home, I believe the level of risk to the children’s safety would increase and that this would greatly question M’s protective capacity’. Paragraph 5,3 ‘I recommend that on-going support can be provided to A, B, and M via the children’s Child Protection Plans. However, if there are evidenced concerns surrounding M and F remaining in a relationship, I believe the Local Authority would need to consider making an application to the family court. If this occurs but the Local Authority believe threshold for Interim Care Orders is not met, I recommend that consideration could be made to requesting the making of Supervision Orders. I believe Supervision Orders would be beneficial as the children’s Plans would be before the court, meaning they would have an independent voice through their own solicitor and Guardian.’ Further under Specific Questions: Paragraph 5 ‘If M remains separated from F, and if there is a clear plan to support F’s family time with the children, I recommend that M has the capacity to safely care for the children in the short and long-term. If there are any further doubts surrounding the status of M and F’s relationship, or if M is allowing F to see the children outside of what has been recommended by the Local Authority, I believe the Local Authority should consider making an application to the family court. If threshold for Interim Care Orders is not met, I believe the children would benefit from being made subject of Supervision Orders as this would give them an independent voice through their own solicitor and a Guardian.’[79]The independent social worker has not been called to give evidence but the guardian’s understanding was that he was referring to any relationship between the parents and it did not have to be a relationship on intimate terms. It was a broader comment in the context of the parents being in touch with one another. Having considered the report in its entirety, I am not sure I accept her understanding.[80]Can it be the case that following the mother stopping the father’s contact in July 2025 (the decision had to be hers as the local authority did not hold an interim care order) that telephone contact was not in the mind of the assessor? Ms Darian asserts there was plainly a real possibility of telephone contact and the assessor weighed up the children remaining in the home taking into account the risks and was satisfied that the mother could look after the children. In this respect, I remind myself that the undertaking signed by the father prohibited him from telephoning the mother.[81]There are additional matters that fall for consideration under Section 1(4) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002. Specifically, I must consider the likely effect on the children, throughout their lives of having ceased to be a member of their original family and becoming an adopted person. If they were adopted that would inevitably represent a huge change due to severing of ties with their birth family. They would need support and potentially significant support to help them understand why they had not been able to live with their mother. In the event of any placement orders being made careful life story work would be necessary.[82]I must also consider ‘the relationship which the child has with relatives … including (i) the likelihood of any such relationship continuing and the value to the child of its doing so’. The wishes and feelings of any of the child’s relatives regarding the children must also be considered. I have already referred to some family members. The balancing exercise in respect of the alternative options open to the court[83]The court must consider the realistic options and then undertake a balancing exercise to enable it to reach the right decision in respect of the children. There are two realistic options in this case – the children remaining in the care of their mother or care and placements orders.[84]The pros of the children being cared for by the mother are that they would remain in the family with their mother who loves them very much and is meeting their needs to the extent that they are said to be thriving. The children plainly love their mother. There might be some contact with wider family members. The right to family life would be preserved and the wishes of the mother and the children would be met. The arrangement is what the children have been used to for all of their lives.[85]The cons are that the mother may not be able to meet all their needs. This is particularly so in respect of emotional harm that they may suffer if they are subjected to the mother’s domestically abusive relationships. Physical harm is also a risk if they were to be caught in the cross-fire of any domestic abuse. There is a real risk of further proceedings being necessary. In the event of further proceedings, both children may well lose the chance of being adopted.[86]The pros of adoption are that both children would have all of their needs met with a forever family throughout their lives. They would be protected from suffering further significant harm. They would have life story work to help them understand why they were not living with their parents. The plan would be for them to see the mother twice a year and for the father to have letterbox contact.[87]The cons are that they would not be brought up with their birth family and their sense of identity and belonging would be affected. This would be particularly so for A given his age. Would he settle with adopters? The children’s legal ties with their birth family would be severed. Adoptions break down. A in particular knows who his mother is. He is attached to her. It would be a significant wrench for both children to be separated from their mother when they have lived with her for all their lives. Separation would inevitably see them suffer harm at least in the short term but potentially in the long term too. If the mother had further children, they might be prevented from having a relationship with them. Analysis and conclusion[88]There is no doubt that the mother loves her children very much. I have given the matter careful thought. Can these children remain with their mother?[89]The social worker was criticised by Ms Darian on the basis of the amended care plan not being proportionate to the issues of concern. It was put to her that the risk has not been identified, neither has the likelihood of any harm arising; the severity of the consequences of any harm or how it could be prevented. It was put to her that there was no contingency plan. This was accepted by the social worker who also accepted that there had been no breach of the December 2025 safety agreement. She candidly accepted that as a result she could not say that nothing else will do.[90]The guardian was clear that whilst the children may not have suffered any physical harm the fact that they have had telephone and video calls with their father is likely to have been emotionally harmful given the experiences they have had when the parents were together. In her view, it is the cumulative effect and simply because the children are not manifesting with obvious signs of harm does not mean that they have not suffered harm. The risk she said was not simply being exposed to the father but the mother’s relationship with G and any subsequent relationship she may have given that she has not been in a position to demonstrate that she has learnt from the work that she has done and to put it into practice.[91]Have the social worker and guardian erred in their approach in concluding that because of the mother’s dishonesty there should be no further support and the care plan as now put forward before the court is justified? The guardian’s evidence was confusing as to support. In her first final analysis she supported a supervision order but she had yet to see the support plan to understand the support offered by the local authority. However, in her oral evidence she also said that further work would make no difference but it might have caused her to change her mind. It is hard to reconcile her conflicting evidence on this point although I acknowledge she made reference to support at a time when she thought the mother was working honestly with the local authority. In my view, even taking into account the change of care plan at the end of December, it remains a real concern that no further work was identified and this is now brushed off on the basis that it would serve no purpose. The journey in respect of domestic abuse for some can be just that. It is not always the case that once the course has been attended there is no further need for learning.[92]In so far as to what was expected of the mother, the safety plan in November 2025 made specific reference to there being no family time between the father and children unless supervised by the local authority.[93]As for support, the supervision order plan made specific reference to work around risky adults. Presumably this was to build on the work the mother had already done. It is an important part of my analysis to know what can be put in place to ensure the safety of the children. I acknowledge that the guardian said in her oral evidence that due to the mother’s lack of honesty there would need to be somebody in the home with her all the time and this simply is not practical. However, no further work has been done. Further, there have been no known breaches of the Safety Plan since December 2025. If the local authority shared the guardian’s view, one would assume that they would have either put in such support on a short-term basis or brought the matter back to court seeking removal of the children. Neither of those things happened. I have referred to the frequency of the visits elsewhere.[94]Further plans were drawn up which were signed in December 2025. One was in respect of the father and the other related to G. The plan in respect of the father was beefed up somewhat by requiring the mother to call the police or the local authority in the event of the father calling or attempting to call her.[95]The social worker was also criticised by Ms Darian for her lack of analysis of the balance sheet exercise which was said to be superficial particularly in respect of the factors against adoption. This was also said to be the case in respect of the disadvantages of the children being removed from their mother’s care. The social worker accepted that her analysis was superficial as to the disadvantages of adoption which are limited to the children being confused and there being disruption in the event of placement breakdown. She accepted that she could have added more factors but said that she had considered them. She said she had taken into account that the children are likely to be devastated if they are separated from their mother and that there would be lifelong consequences in respect of their identity. She said she has not overlooked that they have a secure attachment to their mother. She said her views were clear in the child’s permanence records. She said she has had to consider the harm on a relatively short-term basis compared to what their life might look like if they stay with the mother. Given her significant concerns about domestic abuse she considers the test is met for care and placement orders. She said the mother is still at an early stage in the cycle of change. Sometimes the mother is at the contemplation stage and at other times the action stage but she has not been able to maintain the change.[96]The same criticism was made by Ms Darian of the guardian. The guardian was clear in her oral evidence that she has given the matter very careful consideration and said she could write extensively about the pros and cons of adoption but has not done so on the basis that she could be asked about these in further detail when being cross-examined. She said guardians are encouraged to produce succinct reports.[97]I ask, can it be the case that the gaps can be plugged by oral evidence? Sometimes this can be the case but I am concerned about such an approach on the facts of this case which is largely a single-issue case (on the mother’s part) and the children are said to be doing so well in her care? In my view, there is a danger of bolstering a conclusion that has already been reached albeit potentially prematurely.[98]My concerns can be summarized in this way. The care plan before me is now in stark contrast to the original care plan. If I do not make the orders sought, the local authority proposes that the children will stay with the mother under supervision orders as opposed to care orders being made with a plan for long-term fostering. The risk of harm is the children being exposed to domestic abuse. However, it does not appear that they have suffered harm in recent times although I do not overlook the emotional harm to A given his fear of his father. The risk of future harm remains a risk given the parents’ abusive relationship. The passage I have quoted above at paragraph 31 is of some assistance in this case even when considered in the context of neglect. What if anything can be done to ameliorate the risks? In my view, there remains a gap in the evidence and it is not one I am prepared to ignore or fill. In reaching this conclusion I do not overlook that the mother has undertaken work in 2024 and again in 2025. Notably, the work in 2024 was when she and the father were still in a relationship. I also do not overlook that despite the domestic abuse work she still embarked upon a relationship with G and this was not long after she had completed the work. However, the local authority has referred in its supervision plan to the mother doing work around risky adults. This has not happened and no further detail has been provided. Further, the social worker’s response as to whether she was satisfied that nothing else will do given this gap in the evidence was concerning.[99]There is a further gap in the written documents in respect of the balancing exercise of the options before the court. Filling them at the final hearing in oral evidence is a real concern and raises concerns as to whether decisions that have already been made are belatedly being justified. There must in my view be a proper analysis of the harm to these children if they are to be adopted and removed from their mother’s care. It follows that consideration is also needed as to the necessity for care and placement orders (the most draconian orders this court can make) and whether they are proportionate. Given the local authority’s default position if care and placement orders are not made, the exercise is even more important. For completeness the gaps are not filled by the Child Permanence Reports or the guardian.[100]I have found this to be a difficult case. The guardian supports the local authority’s application and whilst I am not obliged to accept her view, if I depart from it I must give reasons for doing so. My preliminary view from reading the papers was that the local authority’s application might succeed. However, having heard the evidence and considered the matter holistically, for the reasons already given, that decision sits uneasily with me. If that is the position I have arrived at, how can I, as the ultimate decision maker, form the view that nothing else will do? I have already referred to the proceedings being in week 40. I am also conscious of the fact that any delay in final decisions being made given A’s age may mean that adoption is unlikely to be achieved. However, I remind myself of the words of Pauffley J in Re NL (a child) [2014] EWHC 270 (Fam) that justice must not be sacrificed at the altar of speed. In conclusion, whilst I do not go so far as to support the dismissal of the local authority’s application, I am sufficiently concerned to be satisfied that the case should be adjourned for these matters to be properly explored.[101]That is my judgment. Her Honour Judge Cope 13 March 2026

order

proportionality) [2018] EWCA Civ 2761. In respect of the latter, paragraph 25 is of particular assistance: ‘Similarly, close attention must be paid to the true significance of lies and lack of insight in the context of assessing welfare. Lies, however deplorable, are significant only to the extent that they affect the welfare of the child and in particular to the extent that they undermine systems of protection designed to keep the child safe. However, as noted by Macur LJ in Re Y (a child) 2013 EWCA Civ 1337 (unreported)3 October 2013, they cannot be allowed to hijack the case. See also Sir James Mumby P in Re A (application for care and placement orders: local authority failings) [2015] EWFC 11: “the second fundamentally important point is the need to link the facts relied upon by the local authority with its case on threshold, the need to demonstrate why, as the local authority asserts, facts A plus B plus C justify the conclusion that the child has suffered, or is at risk of suffering, significant harm of types X, Y or Z. Sometimes the linkage will be obvious, as where the facts proved establish physical harm. But the linkage may be very much less obvious where the allegation is only that the child is at risk of suffering emotional harm or, as in the present case, at risk of suffering neglect. In the present case, as we shall see, an important element of the local authority’s case was that the father ‘lacks honesty with professionals’, ‘minimises matters of importance’ and ‘is immature and lacks insight on issues of importance’. Maybe. But how does this speed through into a conclusion that A is at risk of neglect?The conclusion does not follow naturally from the premise. The local authority’s evidence and submissions must set out the arguments and explain explicitly why it is said that, in the particular case, the conclusion indeed follows from the facts ” ’.