Her Honour Judge Hesford :
- This judgment concerns R, a young toddler.
- This judgment sets out the court's decisions and reasoning for the making of a final care order for R to live with her mother, the approval of contact arrangements and the making of a parental responsibility order in favour of R's father.
- This judgment is considerably longer than strictly necessary, the reason for this is that since the mother was not present (or ultimately represented) at the final hearing, it is important that she understands the reasons for the court's decisions.
THE BACKGROUND
- There is a significant relevant background to this matter as well as previous proceedings which I will address briefly. R is the 6th child of the mother and the first child of the father. None of the mother's older children are in her care, the older three live with their father and the younger two reside in foster care subject to final orders. The local authority have had very long involvement with the mother. The risks to R arise from the mother's intimate relationships which have predominantly featured domestic abuse, as well as her mental and emotional wellbeing. She has been convicted of controlling and coercive behaviours in one relationship and there are allegations of similar behaviours in other relationships, including with R's father. These behaviours can be extreme and would be harmful to R were she to experience them. Both parents have made allegations against the other within these proceedings but a decision was made by agreement that they would not need to be determined within these proceedings.
- The parents presented as a couple during a pre-proceeding meeting in respect of the unborn baby, wanting to be jointly assessed but shortly afterwards their relationship ended following allegations by the father of controlling and abusive behaviours by the mother. R was born on [a date] 2023 and an application for an interim supervision order was made that day.
- Mother initially disputed paternity but DNA testing proved that the father was the biological father to R. He withdrew from the proceedings at an early stage, did not seek contact and was not assessed. A parenting assessment of the mother was completed which supported R remaining in her care and ultimately a final 12 month supervision order was made in June 2023, with the support of the previous guardian, for R to remain in her mother's care with a support plan which outlined the support and expectations of the mother, including therapy, and for the father should he wish to engage.
- The mother met R's basic care needs throughout the duration of the supervision order however there were outstanding matters arising from the supervision order support plan. The local authority's concerns grew and there were many relevant issues. There were issues of mother not being open and honest with professionals around her relationships or providing information to allow for risk assessments to be completed. The local authority arranged for the mother to have further CAT therapy. She brought R to one session so the session could not proceed. This therapy remains outstanding and the mother appeared unwilling to attend; at the least she did not believe that it was necessary. The father informed the local authority that he withdrew from the matter previously due to threats and harassment by the mother which he had reported to the police. The mother was convicted of controlling and coercive behaviour against a previous partner for which she received a suspended prison sentence, a restraining order and a rehabilitation penalty. The mother reported the father to the police accusing him of rape, sexual assault and controlling behaviour. She deliberately deceived the local authority about a new relationship and finally she has been assessed by probation as high risk to previous partners and future partners and medium risk to children should they be exposed to risky behaviours.
- These proceedings were commenced in 2024 as an application for an extension of the previous 12 month supervision order, then followed by an application for a care order shortly afterwards; an interim care order was made at the first hearing with the support of the previous guardian. R has remained in her mother's care under the ICO.
- The father has engaged with these proceedings and seeks a relationship with R. Significant efforts have been made to facilitate contact between the father and R.
- The mother has difficult relationships with professionals and will either refuse to work with them or will bombard them with multiple messages when challenged or when she does not get her way. The original Guardian within these proceedings had to be replaced when the mother made allegations against her and the present Guardian too has recently been threatened with legal action by the mother.
- The mother has undergone a psychological assessment within these proceedings which recommended further therapy. Her parenting assessment was ultimately positive.
- The mother has maintained negative views about the father throughout these proceedings. Whilst she ultimately agrees to the continuation of supervised contact, she remains opposed to any advancement of the same to unsupervised in the future. She is also opposed to the making of a care order, she considered that it would be unnecessary, she can work better with the local authority under a supervision order.
- At the IRH, the parties' positions were as follows:
- The local authority final plan was for a 12-month supervision order together with child arrangement orders for R to live with her mother and to spend time with her father. They produced a schedule of proposed increasing contact for the father which would ultimately move to unsupervised fortnightly overnight contact from Friday evening until Monday morning after 9 months. A copy of this "Contact Progression Plan" is set out at the end of this judgment. They agreed with the father having parental responsibility.
- The mother agreed to the making of a supervision order and a child arrangement order but did not agree to the proposed contact with the father, his contact should remain supervised indefinitely. She did not agree to him having parental responsibility.
- The father sought a care order, agreed with the plans for contact and sought parental responsibility.
- The Guardian supported the making of a care order and agreed with the contact plans save that at this stage a defined order was not realistic. She supported the making of a parental responsibility order.
- The Threshold was agreed at the IRH and was recorded on the order as follows:
1. The local authority submits that at the time that it took protective measures, the statutory criteria set out at Section 31(2) Children Act 1989 were satisfied on the basis that the child R was suffering and/or likely to suffer significant harm attributable to the care that had been given, and was likely to be given, by the parents not being what is expected of a reasonable parent.
2. The nature of the harm suffered and likely to be suffered is physical, emotional and psychological harm.
3. The LA assert that the threshold criteria are satisfied based on the following facts:
a) The mother's older 5 children have been subject to Children Act 1989 proceedings which all concluded with either their placement in the care of their father (private law proceedings) or foster care (care proceedings).
b) The mother when heightened is at times unable to regulate her emotions exposing R to frightening adult behaviour placing her at risk of emotional harm.
c) The mother has a history of entering into relationships punctuated by conflict and surrounded by a pattern of behaviours which include threats of or actual litigation, repeated allegation(s), police complaints and investigation(s) and report(s) of controlling-coercive behaviours and abuse placing R at risk of emotional and psychological harm.
d) The mother is currently serving a suspended custodial sentence together with a restraining order and rehabilitation penalty for controlling and coercive behaviour towards her ex-partner (not the father) placing R at risk of emotional and psychological harm.
e) The nature of the parents' relationship has resulted in them each making serious counter allegations to the police placing R at risk of emotional and psychological harm.
f) Despite extensive support and intervention from professionals including via previous care proceedings and a 12-month supervision order, the mother does not accept the concerns of the local authority placing R at risk of emotional and psychological harm.
g) The father has played no active role in R's life to date and shown no consistent commitment to her placing R at risk of emotional harm.
- At the IRH, the court was invited by all parties to give an indication as to the nature of order which the court considered to be appropriate on the basis of the evidence and without hearing further submissions. The mother's clear position was that if the court concluded matters that day under a supervision order she would not oppose parental responsibility for the father nor an order for contact (agreed by the parties) drafted in general terms that contact to the father would take place in accordance with the recommendations of the local authority, subject to review during the currency of the supervision order. The court duly gave the indication sought and this was recorded on the IRH order as follows: "The court's preliminary view, on the papers, was that a care order was required in this exceptional case." The matter was stood down to allow for reflection and instructions.
- The mother refused to rejoin the hearing thereafter. The court therefore listed the final hearing as an attended hearing, on the basis that the issues were capable of determination on submissions and gave leave for the mother to apply if she wished to proceed with any oral evidence. Interim contact arrangements were established by the order pending the final hearing.
- The mother thereafter made an application to call oral evidence and additionally sought to reopen the (consent) decision not to determine the allegations of behaviour between the parents. It had in fact been the mother's own decision not to pursue determination of her allegations against the father as recorded in an order, with the other parties agreeing. I refused this part of the application, and the matter remained listed for an attended final hearing, with the mother permitted to cross examine the guardian and the social worker in relation to the limited issues in dispute. There were additional directions to ensure the hearing would proceed.
- The mother has filed three statements in these proceedings including her detailed statement in response to the disputed issues of the nature of the order and the issues of contact and parental responsibility. These, of course, stand as her evidence in chief.
- The father has filed 2 statements.
- I have also received detailed skeleton arguments from all parties in relation to the issues of the nature of the order, contact and parental responsibility.
- I have considered carefully all of the skeleton arguments and I can confirm that these have been taken into account in coming to my decision. I listened to the very brief submissions on behalf of the local authority, father and guardian as the mother was neither present nor represented when the hearing finally commenced. As I will now address in detail, nothing I have heard or read since has led me to reconsider the indication which I gave at the IRH. Indeed, the mother's behaviour following that indication has further strengthened my belief that a care order is required as she simply does not respect authority or challenge to her views and remains highly unlikely to work productively and openly with professionals going forward.
THE FINAL HEARING
- The mother failed to attend the final hearing in person as ordered. She had filed a C2 application late the previous day seeking to attend remotely, claiming that R had conjunctivitis and further stating that the hearing would have to conclude before a commitment which she had at 3pm despite the hearing being arranged several weeks previously. No medical report was filed with the application as would be appropriate and she was directed to immediately file one, both via the portal and via her advocate. The court is aware that illness of either mother or child has been used on previous occasions during these proceedings for various matters including being unable to attend, attempting to delay hearings and during contact arrangements. The court offered the mother the opportunity to produce evidence or attend. The hearing was thus stood down until 12 noon and she was informed by her advocate that in the absence of a medical report from the GP the hearing would proceed at 12 noon either with her present in court or in her absence. I am satisfied that counsel had her up to date instructions in accordance with the skeleton argument and a recent conference.
- The mother's position that her other personal commitment should take priority over a final hearing is wholly unacceptable and indeed indicative of the disrespect and contempt with which the mother treats both this court and the other advocates and parties. It is certainly not indicative of any ability to work productively with others. It also further evidences the fact that this mother has no support network as I will address later.
- The mother did not attend by 12 noon and did not provide any evidence of the child's illness. Her updated instructions had been taken and she had informed her counsel that she had been to the doctors yesterday, seen a doctor and obtained a prescription for R. The mother stated that she wanted to hear the evidence and give counsel instructions and felt the hearing was not fair if she could not attend. She asked the court again to permit her to attend remotely. Counsel was reminded of the President's guidance that final hearings were to be attended and not remote. The mother could then apparently make arrangements for R to attend at nursery and the earliest she could attend court was 1.30pm. It was of some surprise to the court that suddenly it had appeared that R was in fact well enough to attend nursery.
- The local authority, it transpired, had been in contact with R's doctors surgery and there was no record of the mother having visited at all. They were able to make these checks and scrutinise the veracity of the mother's claims, due to them holding parental responsibility as a result of the interim care order. If the mother maintained her position, I invited her to immediately provide proof of her visit including a photo of the prescription or medication. The matter was then stood down to commence at 1.30pm when the mother had said she was able to attend court. The mother emailed some photographs to the social worker at 12.24 which were shared and these showed an over-the-counter bottle of Optrex eye drops (non-prescription as mother had claimed) and the child with wet (but not red) eyes. No proof of either doctors' attendance nor prescription were provided.
- It had been made very clear to the mother that if she failed to attend, the hearing would proceed in her absence both on the hearing day as I have already mentioned but also in the clear order from the IRH, in the following terms:
1. There shall be a final hearing at the Family Court sitting in Chester at [time and date] before HHJ Hesford. The parties and advocates shall attend at least 1 hour prior to the listed time for pre-hearing discussions. This is an in person hearing.
2. If the parents fail to attend the final hearing without good reason the court will make final orders including care orders in their absence.
3. The mother must attend the hearing, which will proceed whether she is legally represented or not.
- Counsel for the mother updated the court as the hearing commenced at around 1.50pm to confirm that she was personally unable to proceed and needed to withdraw from the matter as mother's representative. The mother had been unable to confirm her instructions and claimed to now be unwell and be in a state of anxiety and panic. The hearing thus proceeded in the absence of mother or her representative.
- I remind myself of the decision of Mrs Justice Lieven in The Mother v The Father [2022] EWHC 3107 (Fam), [2023] 2 FLR 785 where she said that:
'The starting point is that there is no right in any party to cross-examine. This is made entirely clear by FPR r 22.1. It is open to the Court to limit cross-examination where it is fair and proportionate to do so. This must include the power to prevent cross-examination altogether given that FPR r 22.6 provides that the Court can order that a witness should not be called at all.
And
'The procedure to be adopted in court is a matter for the judge or tribunal, subject to the basic principles of natural justice and, to the degree it does not overlap, Article 6. The Bench had a view as to how the case should proceed and, as I have explained, the process they adopted was not in breach of such principles. Whether they chose to hear the parties on particular points or not was therefore a matter for them.'
Applying FPR 2010, r 22.1 in conjunction with FPR 2010, r 22.6 can mean that as the court has the power to limit evidence and direct that a witness or party shall not be called, it is also able to not require any cross-examination.
- I am satisfied that the mother has had every opportunity to attend the final hearing and chose not to do so, and that despite her absence it has been a fair hearing. She has filed her own detailed statements of evidence, there was a conference with counsel within the last few days resulting in a detailed skeleton argument and the vast majority of the evidence was written, with challenges planned to be made to limited disputed issues with the social worker and the guardian. The father was never intending to give evidence. In my judgment I consider that mother deliberately either sought to avoid attending the hearing in person or delay or derail it altogether as she wanted to avoid the making of a final care order and knew that this was a realistic possibility.
THE ISSUES
- Whether there should be a 12-month supervision order or a care order.
- The contact arrangements.
- The father's parental responsibility.
THE RELEVANT LAW
- The statutory threshold for state intervention is governed by Children Act s.31(2) and a court can 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 them if the Order were not made, not being what it would be reasonable to expect the parent to give to them
I am so satisfied and I do not need to address this further. There is no dispute that the threshold for the making of public orders is crossed; it was agreed at IRH. It is the nature of the order which is in dispute.
CARE OR SUPERVISION ORDER
- I start from the point that "
the court should begin with a preference for the less interventionist rather than the more interventionist approach." (Re O (Supervision Order) [2001] EWCA Civ 16) and "
the judge may not make such an order without considering the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and must not sanction such an interference with family life unless he is satisfied that that is both necessary and proportionate and that no other less radical form of order would achieve the essential end of promoting the welfare of the children." (Re B (Care: Interference with Family Life) [2003] EWCA Civ 786)
- The protection of the child is the decisive factor when deciding whether to make a care or supervision order and a care order should be made only where it is necessary for the protection of the child.
The key differences between a care order and supervision order are:
- Under a care order the local authority can remove the child without further order from the court, subject to any direction the Court may give;
- A care order will allow the local authority to share parental responsibility;
- A care order will last until the child turns 18 whereas a supervision order lasts for 12 months with the ability to extend it for a maximum of three years;
- With a care order there are LAC reviews and an Independent Reviewing Officer but these do not apply under a supervision order.
- In Oxfordshire County Council v L [1998] 1 FLR 70 Hale J (as she then was) suggested that there might be 3 possible reasons for making a care order on the basis that the child was to remain at home:-
- The authority needed the power to remove the child instantly if circumstances required, and also to plan for the child to be placed long-term outside the family;
- It was necessary for the authority to share parental responsibility with the parents; but the fact that considerable help and advice may be needed over a prolonged period was not in itself a reason for making a care order;
- It was necessary to place duties on the authority; but that it would be wrong to impose an order which was not in the interests of the child simply to encourage an authority to perform its statutory duties towards a child in need.
- The more recent case of Re JW (Child at Home under Care Order) [2023] EWCA Civ 944 establishes the following relevant principles:
a. It had never been the case that a care order should be used as a means to ensure that a local authority met its duties with respect to children in need, nor should it be used to influence the deployment of resources.
b. The PLWG recommendations and guidance could be reduced to the following short points of particular relevance to this matter:
i. A care order should not be used solely to achieve the provision of support and services after the conclusion of proceedings.
ii. A care order made on the basis that the child would be living at home should only be made when there were exceptional reasons for doing so. It should be extremely rare for risks of significant harm to a child to be judged as sufficient to merit the making of a care order, but nevertheless as risks that could be managed with the child remaining in the care of their parents.
iii. Unless, in an exceptional case, a care order was necessary for the protection of the child, other means of providing support and services had to be used.
iv. Where a supervision order was being considered, the best practice guidance in the Public Law Working Group April 2023 report had to be applied. In particular, the court should require the local authority to have a supervision support plan in place.
c. The decisive factor in determining which order to make is the protection of the child; a care rather than supervision order should be made only if the stronger order is necessary. Proportionality is key and a supervision order should be made to work where that is the proportionate order. An essential difference between the two is that under a supervision order the court's power to require a parent to discharge parental responsibility in a particular manner is limited there is no power to impose conditions on a parent but, rather, the order rests primarily on consent. That is in contrast to a care order where the authority may determine how others discharge their responsibility.
d. Repeating the guidance in the PLWG report, a care order on the basis that a child lives at home:
'should only be made when there are exceptional reasons for doing so. It should be rare in the extreme that the risks of significant harm to a child are judged to be sufficient to merit the making of a care order but, nevertheless, as risks that can be managed with the child remaining in the care of parents' and 'unless, in an exceptional case, a care order is necessary for the protection of the child, some other means of providing support and services must be used'.
- The Children Act 1989 s35 provides that whilst a supervision order is in force it shall be the duty of the supervisor to advise, assist and befriend the supervised child, to take such steps as are reasonably necessary to give effect to the order and, where the order is not complied with or the supervisor considers that the order may no longer be necessary, to consider whether to apply to the court for its variation or discharge.
- A supervision order does not confer parental responsibility on the local authority and does not give the local authority power to remove the child.
- The report "Recommendations to Achieve Best Practice in the Child Protection and Family Justice Systems" published 1 March 2021 suggested that Supervision Orders were seen as a relatively weak tool and should be more robust and useful. There are six core principles to a supervision plan: partnership and co-production with children and families; multi-agency and multi-disciplinary working; clear, tailored plans including to address ongoing risks along with the findings and conclusions of the court proceedings; resource clarity; formal and robust review; and accountability.
PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY
- The father does not have PR as he was not named on the birth certificate and there is no agreement to the same.
- Parental responsibility is defined in s 3(1) Children Act 1989 as being:
"all the rights, duties, powers, responsibilities and authority which by law a parent of a child has in relation to the child and his property".
The term 'parental responsibility' attempts to focus on the parent's duties towards their child rather than the parent's rights over their child.
- In H (Minors) (Local Authority: Parental Rights) (No.3), Re [1991] Fam. 151 the court decided that there were three material (though not necessarily exhaustive) tests:
a. the degree of commitment the father has shown towards the child;
b. the degree of attachment which exists between father and child and;
c. the reasons of the father for applying for the order (a genuine motive).
Commitment is not measured in terms of financial contribution.
- In practice, it is quite rare for courts to refuse parental responsibility if these tests are satisfied but of course these cases are decided on individual facts.
- The court must consider the welfare of R, whose interests are paramount.
CONTACT
- This can be dealt with either as an order within the care or supervision proceedings (Section 8 or Section 34 Children Act) or alternatively as part of a plan and ongoing work via the local authority but with no defined order.
- The local authority has a duty to promote contact, under Section 34 of the Children Act 1989. Section 34 places a duty on local authorities to allow the child in its care, reasonable contact with his parents and 'other persons' prescribed within s34 (1) of the act.
- Contact arrangements should, of course, be based upon the child's welfare.
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
- In relation to the issue of the type of order, the question for the court is which is the more appropriate order given the history, risks, and dynamics in this case.
- The local authority invites the court to make a supervision order for 12 months together with a child arrangements order for R to spend time with her father. They submit in their skeleton argument that the ongoing risk of harm to R can be summarised as:
a) High conflict between parents and the parents being unable to manage paternal family time;
b) Mother's inability to consistently regulate emotions;
c) History of conflict, including controlling and coercive behaviours, within maternal relationships;
and they further state that those risks would not be likely to give rise to a sudden and immediate emergency, they are "slow burning".
- The father submits that a care order is necessary at least until such time that the mother has completed the necessary therapeutic work and it can be shown to be effective.
- The Guardian is firmly of the view that this family needs continued support to prevent exposure to the future risk of harm. Her reasons and concerns are contained in her final analysis at paragraph 22 and I share these concerns. They are set out here:
- The mother's ability to work with the Local Authority and some professionals remain a concern. Dr Nolan points out "Mother's engagement with the Local Authority has typically been characterised by defensiveness, perceived grievances, and inconsistent cooperation". It has been evident throughout these proceedings that the mother's relationships with professionals suffer where she is challenged or professionals' views do not align with hers. The mother made allegations against the previous Guardian resulting in R losing a longstanding professional with invaluable experience and knowledge of the family; in addition she is now with her fourth firm of solicitors instructed during these proceedings.
- There were issues at the outset of the parenting assessment with the Local Authority detailing in the Case Summary for one hearing that "Due to allegations The mother has made against LA staff and recent intimidation of a social worker which has necessitated a police referral, the decision has been made for joint visits to The mother at this time including for the purpose of her parenting assessment"; in addition, it is noted the mother had a disagreement with the allocated Social Worker and sought re-allocation of a new Social Worker which was not supported by the Social Work Team. There were further email exchanges between the parties where the mother raised issues with the Social Worker including an email she sent advising the Social Worker he had been banned from entering her home and that the maternal grandfather was reporting the Social Worker to the police.
- There were difficulties in the mother engaging with the psychological assessment citing a few issues. A court hearing was completed to consider the direction for a psychological assessment and issues relating to disclosure of the psychological assessment, causing delay to these proceedings.
- There are particular issues extending through the management of family time but, in my view, it extends far beyond that given mother's past actions and behaviours.
- The mother's credibility is low as appears to be her understanding, interpretation and acceptance of risk, as well as her own honesty. The Guardian expressed concerns regarding the mother's three sets of allegations leading to separate police investigations, as well as about her behaviour, her convictions, her insight into issues, honesty and changing view on subjects. It is notable that she maintained her innocence and pleaded not guilty to the charges against her right up to the trial and even now having pleaded guilty seeks to overturn her conviction despite tacit acceptance of behavioural matters by her attending for training. In addition, in the parenting assessment, there is mention of the mother making false accusations of sexual harassment against a workman; a complaint was made to the police by (Mr WE) who stated that he had met the mother on a dating site, they dated briefly and he completed some repair work to her home. The mother was reportedly unhappy with the work he undertook and made malicious allegations of a sexual nature against him within reviews on his business page on social media.
- The mother had made it very clear in her final statement that she would not agree to any unsupervised contact, yet she then indicated that if the court would agree to a final supervision order rather than a care order, she would agree. These are entirely contradictory statements. In her statement she set out her detailed reasons for refusing unsupervised contact but then suddenly would agree. Her decision certainly did not seem to be based on welfare issues. It is difficult to assess whether she truly would agree to and facilitate and support contact or whether she was merely paying lip service as her actions regarding contact have not always been positive. Her absolute refusal to rejoin the hearing did not indicate positivity and nor did her demand to reopen the issue of findings against the father (no-actioned by the police) which she had actively agreed not to pursue. The mother effectively sought to hold the court to ransom at the IRH in relation to the nature of order versus contact and PR and her offer to capitulate suggests that she based her position on achieving the outcome of order she wanted rather than what is in the best interests of R. She does not seem to understand that the court's decisions are not made on a system of barter, but on the child's best welfare and her lack of understanding (or acceptance) of this is very troubling.
- I remind myself of the assessment by Dr Nolan and that the mother does not like to be challenged and is quick to perceive injustice. In short, she likes to have her own way. Her constant changing of solicitors would also chime with the psychological assessment "The mother's relationships with professionals are marked by defensiveness and inconsistent cooperation, influenced by perceived grievances and sensitivity to criticism" and "Her relationships with professionals are marked by perceived grievances and defensiveness, often interpreting feedback as personal attacks."
- In addition to her behaviour at the IRH the court was also made aware of the recent email which she has sent, which threatens to sue the Guardian and to which I have already referred.
- There has already been one supervision order in force with which the mother failed to comply leading to an extension, then care proceedings and an interim care order. The mother now says that she will work better with the local authority under a supervision order rather than a care order. I simply cannot accept that, the evidence suggests otherwise. The mother is happy to work with professionals when she wants to and when it suits her but not when challenged or when it is something with which she takes issue. I do not accept that she will promote contact with the father or develop the same despite her indication of agreement to the same in the event of a final supervision order. It simply does not ring true and does not accord with the rest of her evidence and behaviours. To the psychologist, she stated that she was being "provoked" by the local authority in relation to father's contact.
- Without a high level of intervention, I do not see contact progressing at all. The parents cannot communicate and have made serious allegations against each other. There would undoubtedly be a need for further proceedings, probably without legal representation for either parent. The management of contact, and indeed any other decisions the father may wish to take in exercising his parental responsibility if granted, are likely to prove extremely troublesome.
- This mother appears to have no support network. At most hearings she has apparently found immense difficulty in arranging for someone to assist with childcare for even an hour and has sought to have her daughter present in the house whilst the hearing takes place. Whilst unsatisfactory, this has been permitted so long as the child was out of earshot, simply to allow the hearing to proceed. In my judgment this clear lack of available support is also relevant to the decision which I make.
- Something more than mere advice and assistance is needed. In my view, support and intervention is needed at an enhanced and significant level and for a considerable period of time. This is even more so since the mother has now indicated that she seeks to appeal her criminal conviction (despite pleading guilty) and if she does pursue this it will likely be very challenging for her emotionally, particularly if unsuccessful. Therapy will also be challenging for her.
- The mother would present a risk to R should she enter into further unhealthy relationships; she has a conviction for coercive and controlling behaviours towards an ex-partner and there is a pattern of domestic abuse in her past relationships with allegations being made not just by the mother but by several other partners against her. As such, should these behaviours repeat in future relationships, R will be growing up in an environment where the understanding of relationships, how to work together, manage disagreements and use of control are skewed. R will not be living in a household where self-confidence and a positive self-image is supported and where she will be exposed to frightening and unpredictable behaviours. The mother has also been dishonest about relationships in the past. I consider it to be highly unlikely, based on the evidence of the mother, that she would ever paint a positive picture to R of her father as a good role model and father to her or even potentially allow R to believe the same, such is the strength of the mother's narrative.
- I therefore accept the arguments before me that a supervision order would not provide sufficient robustness. I accept the Guardian's evidence that the making of a supervision order is less proportionate. The local authority has already worked with the mother under a supervision order and goals were not achieved and concerns grew leading to this set of proceedings. Under the previous supervision order, mother refused to complete the recommended therapy, she was convicted of coercive and controlling behaviours, she received a suspended prison sentence as well as a restraining order; she is assessed by Probation as high risk within relationships and medium risk to children when in relationships; and she was unable to work openly and honestly with the local authority.
- During these proceedings the mother has openly and frequently stated that she does not support R's contact with her father, she wishes to appeal the outcome of the police investigation against the father; her professional relationships continued to suffer and/or breakdown when challenged or when she disagrees with professionals. She fell out with the previous Guardian, is now with her fourth firm of solicitors in these proceedings, has had disagreements with Social Workers and told the Social Worker they cannot visit her home, refused to attend a court hearing and the psychological assessment states she has only partial insight and understanding of concerns. She is appealing her conviction (following a guilty plea) and minimises her abusive behaviours despite completing courses with probation.
- The mother's skeleton argument sets out her proposals for contact in only 3 lines and the detail and progression are notably minimal, with no detail whatsoever about how the contact could develop, in contrast to very considerable detail about why she does not want it to progress, including reasons such as the father's home and his girlfriend. The statement even uses the following phrase at paragraph 22 "
should contact ever move on to unsupervised". In my judgment, this is indicative of the generality of the mother's position concerning contact and her true wish to minimise the father's role in R's life; at the very least it does not suggest an openness to progression. There is little if any evidence that she promotes the father's role as R's father or that she could even view him with any positivity for example emotional outbursts at the contact centre and disparaging the father's gifts for R as well as in her final statement where she suggests that he even gave up his job to avoid paying child maintenance and that his intentions are to cause her stress and disruption. She even suggests that the father's new relationship is abusive without a shred of evidence.
- As stated in Re JW (Child at Home under Care Order) [2023] EWCA Civ 944, the protection of the child is the decisive factor when deciding whether to make a care or supervision order, and a care order should be made only where it is necessary for the protection of the child. In my judgement this is such a case, and the 'stronger order' is absolutely necessary and proportionate.
- This is undoubtedly an exceptional case justifying a care order, notwithstanding that R remains living with her mother, such that the local authority need to continue to share parental responsibility following the conclusion of these proceedings, and such an order is both necessary and proportionate. The local authority would have a duty to promote R's relationship with her father and would not be in a position where the mother can make allegations against professionals and feel unable to stand up to her to enforce the contact arrangements. Further, we are at an early stage of attempting to develop contact and ongoing support will be needed over and above that in the support plan. It is for these many reasons, balanced against risk, that in my judgment, a care order is necessary for the protection of R for the foreseeable future.
- Applying the test in Re F (A Child) (Placement Orders: Proportionality) [2018] EWCA Civ 2761 and Re K (CHILDREN) (PLACEMENT ORDERS) (2020) EWCA Civ 1503 (as recently restated in Re T (Children: Risk Assessment) [2025] EWCA Civ 93) I address the assessment of risk and proportionality as follows:
a. The type of harm that might arise. This is primarily emotional harm through the mother's actions in not working openly and supporting contact with R's father as well as risks from any new relationships. Added to this are the risks shown by the mother's reneging upon her criminal conviction which suggests that she does not accept that she has behaved badly at all. In short, I have seen no improvement since the first supervision order was made and indeed in many aspects the situation is far worse. Contact is part of a child's identity and a failure by the mother to promote the father's contact may ultimately lead to questions being raised as to whether she is actually able to meet R's emotional needs. This could ultimately lead to a removal from mother's care whilst there is no doubt that mother loves R and cares for her physically, the whole holistic package must be considered.
b. The likelihood of it arising.
On the civil burden of proof (balance of probabilities) being more likely than not, it is my judgment that this is very much a potential risk due to the mother's opposition to father's involvement with R in any form and her refusal or inability to work honestly and openly with professionals, particularly when challenged. There is also a real risk of future dysfunctional relationships and a history of the mother being dishonest and deceitful about relationships including even denying being a member of a dating app. In simple terms, she cannot be trusted in this regard. The mother has on occasions been obstructive within these proceedings and absent a legal basis to compel her to engage with required work and actions I do not consider that she would do so voluntarily. The local authority have been involved with the mother since 2011, 14 years later and having had 5 children removed from her care the problems continue.
c. The consequences: what would be the likely severity of the harm to R if it did come to pass?
The harm would be significant as R would not have a relationship with her father, nor a positive picture of him. Abusive relationships would harm R and could ultimately lead to her removal from the care of the mother.
d. Risk reduction/mitigation: would the chances of harm happening be reduced or mitigated by the support services that are or could be made available?
I am not satisfied that support services provided under the auspices of a supervision order would be sufficient to reduce or mitigate these risks even with a robust plan. A supervision order relies on parental consent and cooperation and the previous supervision order was unsuccessful, circumstances are worse now. The local authority have previously been banned from entering the mother's house and even now one social worker cannot attend alone due to the mother's behaviour. The local authority need to have a legal basis to compel her to work with them and this means sharing parental responsibility.
I am also satisfied that R should have support and input from an Independent Reviewing Officer.
- In my view the local authority need to share parental responsibility for the time being, and until such time as:
- The mother can show insight into her past offences, take full responsibility of her behaviours and understand how they impact others and more importantly R.
- The mother has completed the recommended therapy and demonstrated sustained positive change.
- The mother can safely manage relationships with intimate partners and is open and honest about these.
- The mother is enabling R to have a safe relationship with her father and is not negatively portraying him to her.
- The mother is being honest and working positively with the local authority and other relevant professionals including accepting challenge and feedback.
- The mother has been assessed as low risk by probation and the local authority.
- The mother continues to maintain abstinence from drugs.
- I agree with the plans for contact as set out by the local authority. They are detailed and supported by the assessments and take matters at a realistic pace. The father has shown his commitment by attending throughout this case and engaging with the court proceedings as well as attending for arranged contacts. I do, however, tend to agree with the Guardian that an order at this stage would be difficult. Accordingly, the details as set out at the end of this judgment should be set out in a recital as planned contact and it should be kept regularly under review. In the event that the mother fails to comply with the recital and there are no other pertinent reasons, then an order in similar terms would be inevitable. The mother has the option now to evidence that she can work with the local authority and indeed the father, in R's best interests and welfare.
- I also agree that the father should have parental responsibility. He has evidenced his commitment to R through this process and the attachment will be developing between him and R. He has listened and taken on advice and been entirely patient. The father is genuinely motivated to apply for PR. None of the mother's concerns or reasons for opposing PR are evidenced except by herself and I do not accept them. Her main reasoning for refusing to agree to PR for the father (save for when she indicated she would agree if there could be a supervision order) are linked to maintenance, which is not a relevant issue and in any event is dealt with by the CSA, and his behaviour, none of which has been proven and it is notable that the police took no further action. The father had admitted some poor behaviour on his part during the relationship and this acceptance is to his credit. He is not, however, required to accept the mother's allegations against him and I have already addressed these earlier. His parenting assessment is positive for contact. I have considered relevant cases concerning PR including Re G (A Minor) (Parental Responsibility Order) 1994 1 FLR 504, H (A Minor) (Parental Responsibility), Re [1998] 1 FLR 855 and J (Parental Responsibility), Re [1999] 1 F.L.R. 784.
- Finally on this issue, I quote Lord Justice Wall in Re S (Parental Responsibility) 1995 2 FLR 648):
"There is another important emphasis I would wish to make. I have heard up and down the land, psychiatrists tell me how important it is that children grow up with a good self-esteem and how much they need to have a favourable positive image of the absent parent. It seems to me important, therefore, wherever possible, to ensure that the law confers upon a committed father that stamp of approval, lest the child grow up with some belief that he is in some way disqualified from fulfilling his role and that the reason for the disqualification is something inherent which will be inherited the child, making her struggle to find her own identity all the more fraught"
DECISION
- I make a final care order.
- I approve the final care plan filed by the local authority.
- I make a parental responsibility order in favour of the father.
HHJ Hesford
Date 28 April 2025
CONTACT PROGRESSION PLAN
The family will identify 3rd parties for assessments/checks to be undertaken to assist as contact arrangements progress. Where appropriate a 3rd party will be used at points of handover, otherwise, the arrangements are outlined below.
Months 1- 3
Type of Contact: Supervised by the Contact Team.
Frequency and duration: Weekly for 1.5 hours.
Location / setting: A Family Centre.
Arrangements:
- The mother to confirm contact will go ahead at 9am on the day of contact.
- The father to arrive 30 minutes prior to the start of contact.
- The father to sit in the contact room.
- The mother to ensure R attends on time (and not early) for contact and is handed over to the contact supervisor without delay.
- The mother will not enter the Family Centre other than the foyer area to avoid contact with The father.
- Contact supervisor to hand R over to The mother at the end of the 2 hour contact session.
Review: Child in Need Meeting to be held within which consideration will be given over the progression of contact plans as outlined below.
Months 3-6
Type of Contact: Unsupervised.
Frequency and duration: Weekly for 3 hours.
Location / setting: Local community.
Arrangements:
- Mother to confirm contact will go ahead at 9am on the day of contact.
- Father to arrive 30 minutes prior to the start of contact.
- Father to sit inside the Family Centre.
- Mother to ensure R attends on time (and not early) for contact and is handed over to the contact team.
- Mother to immediately leave the local area.
- Father to have 3 hours contact in the local community and to remain within the local vicinity.
- Father to return to the Centre 15 minutes prior to the end of the contact session and sit inside with R.
- Mother to arrive to collect R on time (not early).
- Contact supervisor to hand R over to Mother at the end of the 3 hour contact session.
- Any other person Father wishes to involve in this contact will be the subject of Local Authority and Police checks. Father to notify the Local Authority in advance.
Review: Child in Need Meeting to be held within which consideration will be given over the progression of contact plans as outlined below.
Months 6-9
Type of Contact: Unsupervised.
Frequency and duration: Alternate weeks week 1) 4 hours in the community and week 2) 1 night overnight contact.
Location / setting: The father home / his local community.
Arrangements:
- Alternate weeks contact in the community in line with the above recommendations.
- A visit will be undertaken to The father property to ensure this is suitable prior to overnight contact progressing.
- At this point, should The father wish for a partner to be involved, she will be the subject to checks being undertaken by the Local Authority.
• Overnight contact to take place every other week.
• The mother to confirm contact will go ahead at 9am on the day of contact.
• The father to collect R from the Family Centre.
• The father to arrive 30 minutes prior to the start of contact.
• The father to sit in the contact room.
- The mother to ensure R attends on time (and not early) for contact and is handed over to the contact team without delay.
- The mother will not enter the Family Centre other than the foyer area to avoid contact with The father and will leave after handing R over.
- These arrangements will also be utilised for R's collection.
Review: Child in Need Meeting to be held within which consideration will be given over the progression of contact plans as outlined below.
Months 9-12
Type of Contact: Unsupervised.
Frequency and duration: Fortnightly overnight weekend contact.
Location / setting: The father home / his local community.
Arrangements:
• Alternate weekend overnight contact.
• The father to collect R from either the Family Centre or Nursery on Friday.
• The father to drop R at The Family Centre or Nursery on Monday morning.
• If The Family Centre is utilised as a venue;
• The father to collect R from The Family Centre.
• The father to arrive 30 minutes prior to the start of contact.
• The father to sit in the contact room.
- The mother to ensure R attends on time (and not early) for contact and is handed over to the contact team without delay.
- The mother will not enter The Family Centre other than the foyer area to avoid contact with The father and will leave after handing R over.
• These arrangements will also be utilised for R's collection.
