Denbighshire County Council v P &Ors

This is an application made by Denbighshire County Council for welfare orders pursuant to section 16 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 in relation to P. That application is dated 26 September 2024. The proceedings have subsequently been reconstituted under section 21A of the Mental Capacity Act.

The respondents, largely A, have also made numerous applications to the court, but ultimately all applications relate to where P should live and other matters ancillary thereto. In this judgment I am addressing all applications which are outstanding, including one which was made after I reserved judgment.

P is a 20-year-old woman with a diagnosis of learning disability, autism and global developmental delay. A is her mother and B is her grandmother. These have been lengthy and eventful proceedings. Details of events leading up to the final hearing last month when I reserved judgment are set out within a very detailed chronology prepared on behalf of the local authority.

I have also been provided with position statements prepared by counsel for the local authority and for P, by her litigation friend the Official Solicitor, as well as written closing submissions from counsel for P.

On 7 April 2025 I made declarations pursuant to section 15 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 that P lacks capacity to litigate these proceedings and to make decisions about her residence, care and support and contact with others.

P is a very vulnerable young woman. On 26 September 2024 the local authority applied on an urgent basis to place P in her usual respite placement, X Placement, without notice to her mother, A, because of the level of risk presented to P by her mother’s relationship with F, her mother’s partner. He had in the past been convicted of a very serious assault on a minor and was also considered to have targeted vulnerable women and young people.

A had entered into a relationship with F extremely quickly and she had also introduced him into P’s life. A says that he did not tell her his real name initially. She was initially unwilling to recognise the risk which he might present to P. She also denied that F had assaulted her. Her denial of the risk presented by F was sustained, even when she was told in detail of the nature of his offending. She also maintained to professionals that her relationship with F had come to an end, whereas that was not the case. She is now very remorseful about that relationship. She is working with Domestic Abuse Services. It is clear to me that she feels guilty that it was her relationship with F and her lack of honesty with professionals which resulted in P being removed from her care.

These have been very difficult proceedings. A and, to a lesser extent, B, can become very emotional during court hearings. In the past A has stormed out of court. During the course of these proceedings she has been extremely rude to members of the social work team and the solicitor for Denbighshire County Council. It is completely unacceptable to treat professionals who are doing their best in difficult circumstances in this way. I consider that A’s emotional outbursts on her part are her way of lashing out to try to distract from the guilt she feels over the reasons for P’s removal. I have no doubt that she and B love P very much, but at times A’s emotions get the better of her and she does herself no favours by behaving in this way.

Despite these behaviours, the local authority has recognised the importance of A and B and B’s husband, C, to P, and P has continued to spend time with them. She sees her maternal grandparents (B and C) every week and speaks to them daily. Things developed to such an extent during these proceedings that P was spending her weekends, Friday to Sunday, with her mother, firstly in North Wales and thereafter in England when she moved to live there. However, this arrangement came to an abrupt end when the local authority discovered that A may be in a relationship with H and that she and P had been to the zoo with H and his son. B was very frank about H in a meeting with professionals. She believed that it was H with whom A had been in a controlling relationship in the past and that he was the reason she previously left England to live in North Wales. A denies this and says that that was another man, J.

I have listed this hearing in order to determine decisions about P’s residence, care and contact with family. The local authority seeks orders that it is in P’s best interests that:

I am also invited to make final the terms of the injunctive order made on 8 July 2025 and expanded on 17 July 2025 against A only. During the course of the hearing the local authority invited me to discharge the injunction against B. This was supported by the Official Solicitor and I am in agreement that there is no basis upon which the injunction against B should continue, and I accordingly discharged that injunction with immediate effect at the end of the final hearing last month.

The local authority has pleaded allegations against A and these are set out in a schedule of allegations. I am invited to make findings in relation to those allegations. I will deal with those allegations later in this judgment.

At the hearing on 4 August 2025 the court directed that A and Vodafone should provide information as to the identity of the account holder of the telephone number with which A was in frequent contact from 4 March 2025 until 8 June 2025, and then again from 30 June 2025 onwards on her own telephone, and that A should provide P’s old mobile to the local authority for examination.

A initially refused to provide the information to the local authority, despite me telling her in very clear terms that adverse inferences would be drawn if she did not provide that disclosure. However, on 6 August 2025 she emailed me direct, my email address having been inadvertently disclosed to her by the local authority solicitor, to confirm that the account holder was H. She knew, of course, that I had ordered Vodafone to provide that information in any event and, in fact, later that day this was also confirmed by Vodafone.

A also brought a mobile phone with her to court on the first day of the final hearing, saying that she had bought the phone back from the individual to whom she said she had sold the phone for parts. The content of that phone has not been analysed. However, I understand that she asked H to sell the phone for her, so since she initially parted with that phone it has passed over to H and to an individual who apparently intended to use its parts for repairs.

Furthermore, she told me that she had broken the SIM which was in that phone, so I do not know whether it would have been of any evidential value now. In any event, it was disproportionate to adjourn proceedings to enable that phone to be analysed. There is sufficient evidence before me to enable me to write this judgment and to make findings where appropriate.

During the course of this final hearing I have heard evidence from the following: HT of Denbighshire County Council, AG of Denbighshire County Council, A and B.

HT confirmed that P enjoys spending time with her mother, A, and that their supervised contact in the community has been largely positive, although P has experienced bowel incontinence on occasion. The local authority is seeking professional help for this. The learning disability nurse believes it may be due to anxiety or excitement, but medical advice is being sought as well. The faecal incontinence appears to have occurred since P had caught Covid and the manager of Y Placement had also been off work with a stomach bug, so there were other potential explanations. Indeed, A stated that P had always experienced bowel issues and was under the care of a hospital in England for this.

Telephone contact with P and her mother (A) and grandmother (B) was also generally positive. P had responded well to the new telephone protocol; she was engaging more in in-house activities in Y Placement. She was spending more time downstairs with other residents and staff. During telephone contact with her mother there was, however, still a lot of discussion about court and the judge was mentioned a lot. HT felt that during such phone calls the mother was putting a negative spin on the current situation. They were now seeing unsettled behaviour in P; she had recently hit out at a staff member after telephone contact with her mother.

HT explained that during a previous hearing the mother had whispered the word “abusers” within earshot of the social workers in the court waiting area. HT noted that after a recent court hearing the word “abusers” had been spray-painted, along with HT’s name and that of another social worker, as well as the manager of Y Placement, on the local social services office and the sister placement to Y Placement. Furthermore, on 16 July 2025 the word “nonce” was spray-painted on the front door of the home of the manager of Y Placement. The manager of Y Placement had been very distressed by this. HT noted that A uses the word “nonce” when she is describing F.

HT thought that the CCTV of the person who carried out the graffiti attack on the home of the manager of Y Placement looked like A. The cough and walk also appeared to be like that of A. She was of the view that it was A.

HT noted that on 10 July 2025, two days after a hearing before me, all four tyres of the Y Placement minibus were slashed. The local authority also believe that it was in fact A who sent a threatening email dated 10 July 2025 to the manager of Y Placement, purportedly from someone called JE. The detail within the email clearly refers to P, as she is the only female at Y Placement.

In her eleven years as a social worker HT had never received this level of hostility from any other member of the public. The incidents had been very upsetting for all concerned, particularly for the resident at the sister placement to Y Placement. That resident was a very anxious individual and she was frightened and anxious that she might be targeted again. At Y Placement they could not use the minibus to take residents out. The incident had had a negative impact on staff morale at Y Placement and they were concerned that it would have an impact on residents if they picked up on this.

HT had had to deal with emails from A on an almost a daily basis. This was mentally exhausting and time consuming, taking up all of her working time, as well as that of her colleague, when she had other vulnerable people she was supposed to be assisting as well.

HT said that it was important that the family work with professionals. P needed routine and 24-hour support. A had not been able to care for P and engage with professionals and different carers who came into contact with P. A had fled an abusive relationship in England in December 2023, she then met F on Facebook Marketplace and within two days F had moved in with her and P. A neighbour had reported that F was assaulting A, police visited, and A denied being assaulted by him, which subsequently transpired to be untrue.

A had denied being in a relationship with F to her parents, and had not been honest about the relationship with the local authority, telling them that the relationship was over when it was in fact continuing. When A was presented with the information about F’s criminal history her response was that everyone deserves a second chance.

B had warned the local authority that she thought that A was back in a relationship with H, someone with whom she believed A had been in a controlling relationship in the past when A was living in England. A had said that B was mistaken and that she had in the past been in a relationship with J, who was a friend of H. HT said that at the outset of the local authority’s involvement with the family they had given A the benefit of the doubt. They had given her every opportunity to end the relationship with F or to at least keep him away from P. P was provided with respite every weekend. HT felt that with the benefit of hindsight it was probably not the right approach and that they should have removed P immediately in view of the risk of F.

HT was concerned that F had told the probation service that he was still in a relationship with A. She noted that the restraining orders which were in place for both A and P do not exclude F from the approximate location in England where A lives. A said that this is because she does not want F to know that she is now living there.

HT noted that P was thriving in college and that she was likely to be offered a place for a third year. She was starting her second year in college in September 2025.

There is also a residential facility available at the college which P attends in the week on a non-residential basis. HT said she was concerned that if P were to live there she might view her college as a negative place, because the family would be likely to be unhappy with the care at the college as well. The other problem was that the college would not contemplate P living there unless there were restrictions in place which prohibited any telephone contact between P and her family and which also prevented P’s family visiting her at the residential side of the college. HT felt that P had been through a lot of moves recently and she was getting used to a new form of contact with A. P had settled very well in Y Placement and was comfortable with the other residents there. She went downstairs more and undertook more activities with other residents and staff.

The other issue was that P would have to leave the college residential accommodation once the course had ended in one or two years’ time. The local authority would prefer P to move to a community living placement in the long-term rather than have another short-term move now as well. She said that P had good conversations with her mother but that sometimes A tended to dwell on negatives, including court proceedings. That caused P to worry. HT tried to explain to A that the only reason that the local authority had suspended the overnight stays which P had been spending at A’s home in England was because they were told by B that A was back in a relationship with H with whom she had previously been in a relationship when living in England and from whom B believed A to have fled with P to Wales.

HT acknowledged that this must have been difficult for B but that in making this disclosure to the local authority B had put P’s best interests first. Vodafone records have subsequently shown that A had been in contact with H’s phone, albeit A said that it was H’s son who had been contacting her, not H. In her evidence later during the hearing A stated that she had been in contact not only with H’s son but also with H.

HT referred to a speech and language therapy assessment which indicated that P struggles to tell a story and retain information. She gave a good example of that. For instance, in her last visit to her grandparents’ home P would not get out of the minibus and she said that this was because she did not want to go to nanna’s. She said that this was because she did not like nanna. They know that is not the case as P loves her nanna (that is, B) very much, and HT speculated that P’s reluctance to get out of the minibus may have been because she was feeling unwell.

HT also said that during phone conversations P would become fixated on things. For instance, she did not initially like the fact that her phone had been locked up and A’s response was that she knew that this was not good and that she would tell the judge. This then gave P a sense of uncertainty and being worried.

HT also acknowledged that spending time with her family was important to P. They had only stopped the overnight unsupervised contact between P and A because of the information coming from B that A was back in a relationship with H. HT said that they had not allowed A to take P to Butlins in Skegness with her and a friend and the friend’s child as A would not provide information which they asked for, such as with whom they would be holidaying and because she would not confirm to them how she would address P’s needs if she became distressed.

AG confirmed that if P were to reside in the college’s accommodation the college would insist on the family not attending the accommodation. They would not permit telephone contact between P and A and B and C either. The absence of telephone contact with her mother and grandmother would not be in P’s best interest as this was important to P. If she were to move to the college that would represent the fifth move for P in less than two years and she would not be able to stay there if she were not enrolled in the college, so at best she would only be able to stay there for a maximum of two years.

She was also concerned that if P moved to reside in the college the same complaints would arise about the college’s residential care. There was also a risk that the college, which appears to be P’s haven, would become less stress-free for her as she anticipated that the family would become unhappy with the care in the college at some stage in the future, just as had happened with X Placement, P’s respite placement prior to her moving to Y Placement, and Y Placement.

AG felt that the new telephone routine is working well. It meant that P was engaging a lot more with activities at Y Placement, she was engaging with staff and other residents. She was not so focused on phoning A and B. AG felt that the video and phone calls between P and her mother could be very pleasant at times but that at other times A would be dwelling too much on court proceedings.

AG was very concerned about A’s ability to work with professionals. Given the inability of P to tell a story, anyone caring for P has to be very frank and open with professionals. A had not been. She was concerned about P spending her weekends with her mother in England as they would not know who she would be having contact with. Furthermore, there were times when B and A fell out, so that protective factor would not be present at such times. In addition, they had noticed that when P returned from England she was unsettled, shouting and swearing and not engaging in activities.

AG confirmed that over the summer P had been undertaking a lot of activities with the Y Placement staff. However, she also liked to do things on her own in her room, such as colouring in her books. AG thought that at present three hours per week of contact with her mother is enough for P. AG hoped that in the future the local authority and the mother could work better together. She had investigated every concern raised by the family and none of those were upheld.

I felt that both of these senior social workers were really trying their best to work with the family, especially with A, who has been extremely difficult with them. They were really trying to extend the olive branch to A and to encourage her to work with them and to essentially start afresh. They are clearly not keeping P away from A out of malice but simply to ensure that she is safe. The current position whereby two social workers are working on this case full time is completely unsustainable and must stop. A needs to understand this.

I am going to pause there. The next witness whose evidence I am going to summarise is that of A.

A is very emotional and at times during her evidence she would become overwhelmed and would need a break. For the first two days she came to court wearing a T-shirt which said “Free P from captivity” on the front and “Stop social care neglect” on the back. She must have had this printed herself. I had decided to ignore this T-shirt as it did not identify anyone. However, counsel for the Official Solicitor understandably asked her about this in cross-examination on the second day of the hearing and pointed out to her that this was not something which was conducive to her having a good relationship with the local authority, and I am sure that it was no coincidence that she chose not to wear the T-shirt on day 3 of the trial.

Whilst I have no doubt that A loves P very much, A does herself no favours whatsoever. She said that P wants to be at home with her mother. Eventually she wants her to be independent and live an adult life. Having during the proceedings looked into moving P to a college in England A appears to have now accepted that P is thriving in her current college and that she should remain there. A would like P to live in that college in the week and with her in England at weekends and in holiday time. This was a new wish which A had never previously expressed during these proceedings.

A does not agree with much of the speech and language therapy report. She was adamant that P cannot be lying when it comes to saying that she wants to go home to live with A. It was pointed out to A by counsel for the local authority that the speech and language therapy assessment stresses that it is important not to make promises to P which cannot be kept as that could cause P to become anxious. Yet A has said that she would get a dog for P when she came home. It struck me as very irresponsible of A to say this and a form of trying to manipulate P to say that she wanted to come home.

In a conversation which A had recorded with P in March 2025 A had told P that she (A) promised that she would sort things out for her (P), and that A would tell the judge that P wants to come home. Counsel put it to her that B had openly told the local authority at a round table meeting with Mrs Humphreys, the ALR for P as she then was, that A had coerced P during telephone conversations to say things and that she (B) had heard A do that. B had also said that she had had enough of A’s lies, the inference being that A was deliberately telling P things to upset her. In doing this, when talking to P, A was creating a narrative for P to absorb, namely, that Y Placement and its staff were bad for her.

It was put to A that this is what she had done in her conversation with P on 12 July 2025. A said that P was genuinely unhappy at Y Placement. She denied that she had sent any videos of P to Sir Ed Davey, MP, but had contacted him and he had referred the matter to her local MP. She agreed that she had spoken to a journalist from a local paper. He had apparently covered the F case and had heard her read out her victim impact statement in relation to being assaulted by F. The journalist had told A that he would help her source a solicitor. However, she took a step back as she realised it was all about publicity for him. She said that she had threatened to go to the papers out of frustration as she felt that no one believed her: “I see P neglected and just want help”. She felt that it was in the public interest for people to know about the failures of social services.

A accepted that she had deliberately breached my order of 8 July 2025 not to record her conversation with P. “P is unhappy. What else do I do? It is not something I can just ignore. I had to do it for P’s voice to be heard.”

A also referred to an incident at B’s home on 25 April 2025 when P had experienced a meltdown and, according to B, P was trashing the house. A said that she had refused to allow P to sleep in A’s bed with her. A said that she did not know how to control the situation at the time. It was put to A that she had threatened to take P back to Y Placement as if that were a punishment. A denied this. She said that if she had been in her own home she could have simply sent P to her own sensory room but that she could not do that because she was in B’s house.

A accepted that she had struggled to manage P’s challenging behaviours in B’s home. She also accepted that she had struggled at times when she was living in England with P. A’s mental health was not in a good place and she had sought the help of social services who had provided P with respite care.

A was adamant that she had never been in a relationship with H. She said that the controlling relationship whilst she was previously living in England was with a J and that her mother had made a mistake about this. She said that H was a friend and was gay. (This was the first time she had mentioned that H was gay, despite her having had more than one opportunity to tell me this in earlier court hearings.) A had become like a mother to H’s son, who is nine years old. A had not told her mother that she was in a relationship with J as it was in lockdown and she “did not need the earache” from her mother. A denied fleeing the relationship with J or any other man and moving to North Wales as a result, despite saying this to one of the social workers.

A said that things had become worse because of Covid, meaning that she was isolated as a single mother caring for P. She said that she had refused to provide social services with details of a trip to Skegness which she intended to take P on in May 2025 because she had assumed that when P was at home with her that she could do whatever she wanted with her. She said that she did not realise that she had to tell social services. I simply do not believe this. She should have realised that, in view of her relationship with F and at least one other controlling male, it was entirely reasonable for social services to ask her who would be on the holiday with her and P.

A also did not realise what the problem was with her taking P to the zoo with H and his son. She was adamant that she had never been in a relationship with H and that her mother was mistaken. The person with whom she had been in a relationship in the past was J and she appeared to play down the controlling nature of that relationship as she sought to make out that the controlling nature of that relationship was nothing compared to that with F.

A said that she and H phoned each other and so did H’s son, having previously told me that it was the son she spoke to on the phone, not H. She denied still being in contact with F. She denied vandalising properties with graffiti and damaging the tyres at Y Placement. She also denied sending threatening emails in the name of JE and setting up a false Facebook profile in JE’s name using MM’s photograph, MM being P’s previous social worker who has since left the local authority’s employment.

A said that if P were living in her college A would not mind not having telephone contact with her whilst she was there as she would be doing activities with her friends. A had a good relationship with the college and felt that the college looked into any issues she raised with them.

A now accepted that F was a bad man who had done terrible things and that she should not have let him have any contact with P. She denied that he had been allowed to read bedtime stories to P in bed. She denied leaving P on her own in her house when she was with F, something which B alleged she had done.

I asked her why she had not told social services that the number which comes up on her phone records belongs to H and why she had not simply told them what she had told the court during the hearing, namely, that he was gay. She said that she had discussed the information about the phone number with H and that he had told her that he did not want her to disclose his identity to them. He said: “What are you doing having social services poking their noses into my affairs?” She told me: “He thought I was trying to get him into trouble with social services. I fell out with H and I thought sod it, this is my daughter, and I emailed you.” By “you” she means me, the judge, the trial judge.

She accepted that she feels very guilty that the reason that P was removed was because of F getting in a relationship with her. “I get angry with everyone else because of my shame and guilt about what happened.” That, in my judgment, is the crux of the problem here. A needs to accept that she made a terrible mistake in entering into a relationship with F, but she needs to focus on the positive now with a view to ensuring that P has the best possible life as an adult.

B strikes me as the matriarch of the family. She is in poor health but she is a resilient, tough individual. She is clearly highly intelligent. She was able to point out inconsistencies in the evidence. Whilst she has been emotional at times, she is at heart a very sensible individual who loves her granddaughter deeply and wants the very best for her.

B has also been open with social services, when she has been concerned about A’s relationships for instance. She and A tend to fall out at times, but it is clear that they love each other. During the course of the hearing, it was clear that B shows insight and is not afraid to speak the truth to A and to “tell her it straight”. She tried to encourage A to draw a line under what had happened and to move on, to accept the olive branch offered by social services and to work with them in P’s best interests.

It was interesting that she confirmed that A will listen to her father, C, and whilst she and A do fall out at times, A does not fall out with C. She accepted that P should not live with her mother at present. She made it clear that she would not seek to defend A where she had done something wrong.

She said that there was a time when she believed that A was in a relationship with H in the past when he restricted A’s ability to visit her and C. During Covid B was shielding, but when she stopped shielding A would drop P at her home and she (B) would not see A. This was when she understood A was in a relationship with H. Despite A saying that the relationship was with J and that she had never been in a relationship with H, B maintained her position that she was not mistaken about this. B said that she had seen H when he and A were in a relationship. During that period A had told B that P was not allowed into A’s bedroom. B said that she had sworn at A: “I said: who the fuck do you think he is? Who the fuck does he think he is?” She had never heard of J until A mentioned him in the round-table meeting.

B was asked about A’s relationship with F. She said that she became aware that A had met someone and that his name was FS. She said that C searched on the internet “to protect her, which he has always done. He could not find anything about FS”. She said that on one occasion when A was in a relationship with “FS” P had rung her and told her that she did not know where A was. “I rang her, (A), and told her not to leave P alone. A came to mine with ‘FS’ and I called him all sorts of names. I told her to get into the car and to get her arse home to her daughter and I told her to fuck off out of my house.”

P was in A’s house about five minutes’ drive away. “She would not let me see P. I was not phoning social services to see my granddaughter. It nearly killed me. I did not see her for about six or seven weeks.” B thought that was in about April or May 2024. Then she received a phone call from M, social worker: “She asked if I would be willing to see P if someone dropped her off. We saw P. We had been seeing P for a few weeks. Things were okay. M rang and said she was concerned about ‘FS’ being around P and that they were going to put her in respite for two weeks. I said he’s not been done for sex abuse? They took her for respite. They had a meeting about him. Her dad asked what his name was and he did an internet search and it came up. I went to the round table meeting and I was swearing like a trooper at A. My mouth was disgusting. I could not believe A could go out with something like that.”

B went on to explain that in June 2024 she had gone on holiday with A at the Lodge where the family spends holidays. It was at that point that A told B about F’s controlling and coercive behaviour and his assault on her.

On return home, instead of going to A’s house B had gone to the police station to find out more about F. The police had asked her why she wanted this information and so she told the police what F had done to A.

She said that she had fallen out with A on 25 April 2025 when P had experienced a meltdown in B’s house. Apparently, this had been triggered by A telling P that P would not be allowed to sleep in A’s bed in England. B did not believe that this was because A was in a relationship with H again. She described this incident as “horrendous”; P had trashed her house.

B was asked to explain how she thought A had coerced P at times. She said that it was by “leading” P in conversations. “Her dad had said don’t ask her: have you been in your bedroom all day? Ask: what have you been doing all day today?”

B was concerned that when she is talking with P on the phone that Y Placement staff are listening in. She was clearly not happy about the care P is receiving in Y Placement. She felt that when P is not in college she regresses. B was concerned that, whereas P would tell her what she had done in college, she did not tell her what she had done at Y Placement. B wanted P to reside at the college. She was willing to give up her phone contact with P for that. She did not think that it would be in P’s best interests to go home to her mother’s care.

B thought that P should spend weekends and holidays, or at least some of them, with her mother, A, in England. She and her husband, C, were willing to collect P from college on a Friday and to take her to A in England until the Sunday and to stay there and supervise the contact. She said that she has family in that area, so if she were taken ill a family member could take her to seek medical attention and C could stay with P. If P had a meltdown in A’s home in England B would not mind, as it was not her home which was being trashed. Furthermore, A has a sensory room for P so she could simply go upstairs to her room.

B thought that A was listening to her father (C) a lot more than she had been. B did not believe that A was currently in a relationship.

When asked questions by counsel for P, B said that she had said that she did not support P living with A as she did not think A was ready to have P at home full time. She had no services in place, she needed to prove that she could look after P and that she was not going to pick a boyfriend over P.

B was ashamed of the emails which A had sent to professionals. She did not believe that A had caused the vandalism with the graffiti and the tyre damage, but she could understand why social services would think that.

It was then A’s opportunity to cross-examine B but, as would be expected with two litigants in person, this became more of a conversation, and B told A that: “You need to work with social services. The judge spoke to you yesterday. P is your daughter. You have to prove to the judge and the local authority that you are going to be a good mum and you should have the decency to apologise to them for your emails. I have not brought you up to be the way you have been. P should not have been taken. What would have happened to her if she had not been taken? They have offered to work with you. You have to fight for P. You have to be the better person, admit what you have done wrong and start telling the truth.”

At the conclusion of the hearing B kindly read out and gave me a poem which she and C had written on behalf of P which was very touching.

I am going to deal with the allegations now.

I am asked to address the allegations set out in the schedule of allegations first of all. It is unusual in a Court of Protection case to have to make findings, but I can understand why the local authority seek such findings in this case which has a long and complex history. I will deal with each allegation in turn. It is for the local authority to prove each allegation on the balance of probabilities.

This is proven. A denies being in a relationship with H. I do not believe her. B was clear and unwavering that A had been in a relationship with H. She has no reason to lie about this and I found her to be a very credible and impressive witness in relation to H. She has seen H and knew him. B notes, however, she is aware when her daughter is in a relationship as she knows her daughter so well. It is also telling that B said that when A starts a new relationship C always checks out the new boyfriend online. This indicates that they worry about her choice of men, something which is entirely understandable, given her history.

Furthermore, there is evidence which indicates that the relationship resumed this year from the Vodafone records. A’s evidence to me in a previous hearing about her engaging with H’s son, and that it was the nine-year-old son who contacted her, changed during the final hearing. In the final hearing she said that she was speaking to H and his son. It was only in the final hearing that she mentioned that H was gay and therefore they cannot ever have been in a relationship. I do not therefore understand why she was not honest with the local authority about this in the first place. Even if they were not in a romantic relationship, A’s evidence to me that H did not want her to tell the local authority that the telephone number was his, as he did not want social services involved in his life, shows that he is not a good influence on her and that he exercised a degree of control over her which was unhealthy.

I accept that A has recorded P and staff at Y Placement. A admitted this to me and the evidence is there to be seen and heard. Furthermore, A does not appear to have disclosed all of her recordings, despite me ordering her to do so. She is likely to have recorded P and possibly staff even more.

A denies sending the videos to Sir Ed Davey but B believed that she had done. I am not willing to find that A sent the video to Sir Ed Davey; there is no correspondence to show that such a video was sent to him. B simply understood that to be the case. I do not believe that she is being dishonest in her evidence on this, but we know that A can sometimes say things in the heat of the moment that she does not follow through on.

A has admitted she took tramadol in one of her statements. She admits purchasing pregabalin. I note that T, the social worker in England, was concerned that A was accessing unprescribed medication. A herself says that she has experienced poor mental health in the past and has now sought medical advice and prescribed medication to address these issues.

I am satisfied that on 25 April 2025 P became heightened and distressed in A’s care whilst at B and C’s house. A was unable to calm P down and P proceeded to trash B and C’s house. A did tell P that if she did not behave she would return her to Y Placement. The local authority argues that this was used as a threat of Y Placement being a form of punishment. I do not consider that A really thought that. If P had been in her own home, that is A’s home, she would have been able to send her to her sensory room to calm down. She did not have that option in B and C’s house and she would have known that her mother, B, would have been very upset at her home being trashed. Accordingly, the only place she could take P where she knew she would be safe if she did not calm down was Y Placement.

A has also sought support from social services in England to address P’s challenging behaviour as she has grown and become more difficult to manage. She was a single parent and finding it difficult to manage. No criticism is made of her for this, which was clearly the right thing to do.

I think that P and A have lived in at least five different properties but otherwise the allegation is made out. It should also be added that whilst A and B do fall out, they clearly love each other very much. It is also important to note that even though the two of them fall out at times, it appears that A is far less likely to fall out with C.

I am satisfied that A has:

A denies these allegations. All she says is that: “The CCTV does not look anything like me. In fact, I wish I were that slim.” She does not address the other allegations. I understand that these incidents are currently being investigated by the police and I have given careful consideration as to whether I should address these allegations, but it strikes me that they are highly relevant to these proceedings and that I have no alternative but to address them. They are relevant in the sense that, given that I have found that A has carried out these deeds, it shows her attitude towards the professionals and Y Placement, and that impacts on P. She is going to find it difficult to contain her feelings of hostility towards professionals and Y Placement and that will have an impact on P directly, and staff are likely not to be relaxed when caring for P, which will again not be in P’s best interests.

Whilst the police investigation is not yet concluded, it is important that each of these incidents is seen in context, as one cannot ignore that these incidents are connected to A and her hostility towards Y Placement and professionals in some way. Every incident appears to occur after a significant event with professionals or in court.

The episode on 26 March 2025 happened after A had complained about the care at Y Placement. She and B then attended Y Placement unannounced and arranged to take P out to McDonald’s. Y Placement called the police for advice. Overnight the graffiti was daubed on the council offices. This refers to the names of the two social workers who were responsible for P’s care at the time. Furthermore, the word “abusers” is a word which A tends to use. When in the court waiting area on 8 July 2025, for instance, A referred to the social workers as “abusers”.

On 8 or 9 July 2025 the tyres of the Y Placement minibus were slashed. It was on 8 July 2025 that there was a hearing before me when I approved the contact restrictions limiting P’s contact with her mother to supervised contact for three hours every Saturday.

On 10 July 2025 the sister placement to Y Placement had the word “abusers” daubed on its fence. “Abusers” is a word A uses. It is consistent with a previous graffiti incident. It is the same day that an email was sent from “JE”.

As for the incident of graffiti to the home of the manager of Y Placement on 16 July 2025, there is Ring doorbell footage of someone in a tracksuit approaching the manager of Y Placement’s home. I agree with the evidence of HT that this individual looks like A. The person walks like A, the person’s cough sounds like that of A, the word “nonce” is sprayed on the front door. This is a word which A uses to describe F as she cannot face referring to him by his real name. She also appears to use it as a way of insulting other individuals such as the local authority’s solicitor. She is clearly using it to insult the manager of Y Placement.

A has provided no evidence to show that she was not in the area at the material time, but even if she had, I would have found that she arranged for these attacks to occur, but I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that she carried them out herself.

A appears to admit this but says that M told her that she did not have to provide this information as there was only an interim order in place. This does not make sense to me, but even if that was A’s understanding, it has been made very clear to her during these proceedings that she needs to provide this information to the DWP and she has still failed to do so.

I find this allegation proven, but I accept that A is more likely to be honest with her father than with others. A admitted not telling her mother about her relationships, and we know that she was still in a relationship with F when she said it was over. She has not been open about H’s telephone number and she has not been open and honest about the true nature of that relationship. She did not provide the information requested by social services when she planned taking P to Skegness.

I do not think that it is in dispute that A has threatened to take P’s case “to the papers”.

I find this allegation proven in respect of A. I find that B’s concern about the hairdryer being too hot for P’s head was a legitimate concern, but that it was blown out of proportion. B tends to say things which sound bad, such as if P were harmed she would rip off the face of the person who harmed her, but I agree with Counsel for the Official Solicitor that this is a way of expressing her strong protective feelings towards P rather than her meaning it in literal terms. I do not accept that the WhatsApp group call was a deliberate group call, it was simply that A was in the same property as B and C at the material time.

The recording supplied by A clearly evidenced the fact that she has been deliberately “leading” P, something which B and C have also accused her of doing. Whilst there is some evidence of B leading P, this is far more limited in extent and is not deliberate, contrary to A.

I find this allegation proven in relation to A only. I do not accept that B has the IT skills to do these things. She said that she only learnt how to send emails during the course of these proceedings, which I accept. Furthermore, B strikes me as a very straightforward individual who is straight with people and will tell them to their faces if she is not happy with matters. She has done that during these proceedings, even with A during the course of the final hearing.

In contrast, A has been underhanded. She has used profiles to disguise her own identity online. Furthermore, the context of the email and the profile from M is important here. The email was sent from JE on 10 July 2025 two days after the tyres were slashed. The email clearly relates to P as she is the only female in the care of Y Placement. Furthermore, she is referred to in that email as a child and a grandchild, both of which she is, albeit now an adult. It is clear that A’s behaviours were particularly heightened at around this time. She was being abusive in the emails and she issued an application to the court. If it was not her who sent the email she encouraged it to be sent. For the same reasons, I am satisfied that she set up the Facebook profile for M. M confirmed that she did not do so.

B told me in court that she had driven past the home of the manager of Y Placement and she again admits this in the schedule. She also said that she would rip off the heads of anyone who harmed P. She told me that in the court in the past. As I have said earlier, I am satisfied that this is simply her making it clear how protective she feels about P but that she does not mean it literally.

Everyone agrees that P lacks capacity to conduct these proceedings and make decisions about her residence and care. Accordingly, an act done or decision made on behalf of a person who lacks capacity must be done or made in her best interests. That is section 1(5) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Section 1(6) of the Act goes on to say that before the act is done or the decision is made, regard must be had to whether the purpose for which it is needed can be as effectively achieved in a way that is less restrictive of a person’s rights and freedom of action.

A person’s best interests are to be determined in accordance with section 4 of the Act. It makes it clear that, in determining what is in a person’s best interests the court must consider all the relevant circumstances and, in particular, consider the matters listed in the rest of that section of the Act. The Court of Appeal made it clear in K v LBX [2012] EWCA Civ 97 that once one has ascertained the best interests of the individual concerned by applying the section 4 MCA checklist, one must then ask oneself whether the resulting conclusion amounts to a violation of the Article 8 rights and whether that violation is nonetheless necessary and proportionate. The court must consider objectively what is in the best interests of the individual concerned. Each case is fact sensitive and requires the court to undertake a balancing exercise.

The courts have also recognised that it will not always be possible to reliably identify wishes and feelings which can sometimes reflect those of well-meaning relatives or friends as opposed to the genuine views of P, and the case on that is Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board v RY & CP [2017] EWCOP. In terms of Article 8 issues Mr Justice Hedley provides helpful guidance in PCT v P, AH & A Local Authority [2009] COP LR Con Vol 956, that an interference with Article 8 rights: “Will only be proportionate where the best interests of P compellingly require a placement away from AH.”

There is no presumption that P should be living as an adult with her family or otherwise independently, as the Court of Appeal clarified in the judgment in K v LBX & L & M [2012] EWCA Civ 79. There is no prescribed starting point to achieve compliance with Article 8 which protects an individual’s right to a private and family life. What is required is an appraisal of P’s best interests in the round by reference to the factors in section 4(6) of the Act. A right to a private and family life includes steps to personal autonomy, and in this case, just as with L in LBX, it is agreed by all parties that P should be supported to move to supported accommodation in the not too distant future.

It is important to note that in terms of P’s wishes and feelings she is extremely impressionable. The speech and language therapy communication report dated 5 February 2025 is significant in this respect. It notes within the “social skills/social use of language” section that: “On occasion it may appear to others that P understands more language than she does… P may use strategies to mask discomfort or the fact she does not always fully understand what is being said. These factors should be considered by those communicating with her. Be aware that P can misunderstand or misinterpret information which could potentially be a cause of anxiety when they prove to be untrue. When communicating with P it is better to be generic to avoid misunderstanding. Be aware, however, that P may understand something in her own way, possibly based on previous experiences, and others may not be aware of this. On these occasions there is also potential for misunderstandings and for P to become anxious or upset. P has experienced some big changes recently, so be sensitive and clear when giving information to her. If something has been promised (or P has understood this to be the case) and then this does not occur as expected, this can cause P a lot of anxiety. Be careful with what is ‘promised’ to P. Explain clearly what will happen using the recommended communication, advice and strategies.”

Furthermore in terms of “retelling”, the author of the aforementioned report stated that: “P was able to understand and function 10% of the time at level 3 (with a possibility of misunderstanding 90% of the time). This is an extremely low score and shows that P will have difficulties with understanding narrative, sequencing, communicating what has happened and giving sufficient detail. Therefore, what is reported may not be complete or P may omit information unintentionally at times and not realise she has done so.”

An example of this is when P was reluctant to get out of a vehicle to visit B. We know that she loves her grandmother very much, yet she said that she did not want to get out of the vehicle as she did not like her grandmother. That is simply not true. However, it was thought that perhaps she felt unwell that day so did not want to get out of the vehicle but could not explain this. This is an example of why I have to question what I am told that P says to others, as she may not say what she means to say and, significantly, she is easily influenced by others, particularly, I find, A, her mother.

It was also the observation of Mrs Humphreys, previously ALR and now the solicitor of P, that P is impressionable. A has made lots or recordings, audio and video of P. Many show a lovely relationship between P and A, but others are worrying. A is putting words in P’s mouth at times. She is sowing a seed to try to persuade P that she is unhappy at Y Placement, whereas in fact she is thriving there. Sadly, there has been a recent episode when P assaulted a member of staff at Y Placement on 2 August 2025 when she had been speaking to her mother and grandparents on the phone and said member of staff tried to take the phone off her. The family tried to argue that the staff member had assaulted P during this incident, but there is no evidence of this. The family was not there to see anything, they were on the phone. I have not heard from the staff member but I have seen the incident form which she completed at the time and I have seen a photo of said member of staff showing her injuries. I have not been provided with any evidence to support P being injured. It seems to me that P picks up on the negative vibes from her family towards the Y Placement staff and that this may have been why she assaulted that member of staff. I note that P settled very quickly after this incident.

I note that there has been another incident on 9 August 2025 during A’s supervised contact with P when P assaulted her mother during the supervised contact. From A’s evidence in court this is not the first time that P has injured her mother, but I am not aware of P having injured her mother since she has been living away from her mother until 9 August 2025. Things were very tense at that time in the leadup to this final hearing. P appears to have picked up on her mother’s anxieties and also probably the fact that the staff at Y Placement are under strain as a result of the enormous pressure they have been under as a result of A’s wholly unacceptable behaviour towards them and local authority staff.

It is significant that P is now 20 years old. Everyone agrees that they should be working towards securing some kind of supported living in the community for P. Her mother and grandparents are unlikely to survive her; social services will always be in her life. She needs 24-hour support but is thriving in college. She has been undertaking more activities at Y Placement since the phone protocol was introduced and has also been interacting more with the other residents. The college says she is never reluctant to return to Y Placement after a day in college. I am most grateful to Mrs Humphreys for her attendances on P and for her thorough enquiries with the staff at Y Placement and the college into how P has settled into life at Y Placement and away from her family in general. Mrs Humphreys has seen for herself and has received that confirmation from the college, an organisation which is not linked to Y Placement, that P is happy, settled and thriving in Y Placement.

What is very unfortunate is that P’s removal was without notice to her mother. The local authority had no choice in applying for such an order and I had no alternative but to make such an order, given A’s relationship with F and the dangers he presented to P. However, it would have been much better if a move to more independent living could have happened in a gradual planned fashion with full consultation with P’s family.

P’s family, namely her mother, grandmother and grandfather, are clearly very important to her. She enjoys her time with them, so long as they are calm with her and they can concentrate on the contact being positive. A has struggled with that, and I sincerely hope that once these proceedings are at an end she will be able to concentrate on having quality positive time with P with no discussion about these proceedings and without criticism of the local authority and Y Placement.

P is also a young woman with her own friends and her own life. Despite what A says, I am satisfied that she has settled well into life in Y Placement and she would enjoy it even more were she to have the emotional permission from A to call Y Placement home and treat it as such.

It is very illuminating that during that contact on 9 August 2025 A informed the support staff and L Care Provider that P had tried to grab A’s face and had then began to “cry repeatedly” explaining “I want to go home” which must mean Y Placement, and “I want S” one of the carers at Y Placement, “while jumping up and down” and that later the L Care Provider notes reveal that P soiled herself and a staff member encouraged her to go to the toilet to change, whereupon P “repeatedly protested” stating: “No”, “I don’t want to”, “I need a bath” and “I want S”. In addition, P had been reluctant to leave Y Placement to spend time in the community with her mother that day.

B agrees that at present A is not in a position to have P living with her on a fulltime basis. She would like P to live in the college and would agree not to contact P on the phone or in person whilst she was in college. She has offered to stay in A’s home in England at weekends so that P could visit and stay in her mother’s home. A also wants P to live in the college and would also agree not to have any phone or direct contact with P whilst P was at the college. She would like P to live with her at weekends and during her holiday periods.

Both A and B tell me that they have a good relationship with the college. However, they do not currently have any contact with the staff at the residential side of the college so I have no evidence as to whether they are likely to be able to get on with those individuals. Even if they were to get along with the staff on the residential side of the college initially, past events indicate that A, in particular, seems to be able to get on with those who are caring for P in the short-term but not in the long-term. This was the case with X Placement and subsequently with Y Placement. I am satisfied that were P to move to the college to live relations between A and the college are likely to deteriorate in the future, just as they have at X Placement and Y Placement.

I do not consider that the college is a realistic option in any event. The local authority does not put it forward as an option; there are several disadvantages with the college. Firstly, even if P were to live there without issue, which I consider unlikely, she would have to leave when her college course comes to an end so she would have to move after either one or two years, depending on how much longer she remains in college.

Secondly, P enjoys speaking to A and her grandparents on the phone so long as they can control their emotions and comply with the protocol for phone calls. To be fair to B, I think she is able to do this most of the time. That telephone contact is largely positive for P and I do not consider that it would be in her best interests not to have that contact simply because she was residing in the college. I can understand that a phone call may have to be stopped if A was causing P distress, for instance, but it is generally in P’s best interest to have telephone contact with her family. Whilst A and B say they would accept not being able to contact P on the phone during the week were she living in the college, I question their ability to follow this through.

Thirdly, P loves college. I am concerned that if she were to live in the college as well, that A and, to a lesser extent B, would eventually start criticising the college residential staff and this would affect the positive way in which P perceives college.

A submits that it is simply too soon for P to remain living away from home. She argues that P has a sensory room in her home in England and were there any issues with P’s behaviour in the home she would be able to send P to the sensory room. She also submits that she has learnt her lesson from her relationship with F and that she would never put herself in that position again. Sadly, I am not convinced of that. I am concerned about the nature of her relationship with H. Based on the evidence she gave to me in the court at the final hearing, H appears to have a very negative attitude towards social services and he has clearly influenced A’s decision not to disclose that the phone number on her phone account was his. This is another example of A putting a man’s interests ahead of her daughter.

There is simply no excuse for her not having been open with social services about the detail of the proposed trip to Skegness or about the telephone number being that of H. She has told me on numerous occasions that she is a trained albeit not registered or practising social worker (I think she may have done a degree in social work) so she of all people should understand why social services would need these details. They are not asking for this information because they are nosey, they are doing it because they have a duty to ensure that P is safe and, based on previous experience, A has exposed P to dangerous situations, namely, by being in relationships with dangerous controlling individuals, especially F.

For all those reasons, I have no hesitation in finding that it is in P’s best interests to remain in Y Placement to enable her to build up her independence and move to some kind of supported living accommodation when the time is right for her in the future. I am concerned that the placement at Y Placement may break down due to the challenging behaviour of A. However, that is the risk that has to be taken.

I am satisfied that the phone calls between A / B and P should continue in accordance with the telephone protocol. That means that P’s time is not all taken up on the telephone and she can also spend time on activities and with the residents and staff at Y Placement.

What does concern me is the current arrangement for contact between P and A. It is simply not practical, particularly now that the autumn has arrived and winter is approaching. The contact is in a seaside town and P’s mother told me that P does not in fact like going to the beach, which I would have thought would have been one of the better activities in that particular town. There is also evidence based on the events of 9 August 2025 that P is not enjoying that contact. She was reluctant to go. She then appears to have tried to assault her mother and she soiled herself, which could be attributable to anxiety on her part. She asked to return to S and Y Placement. It may well be that she was sensing that her mother was very stressed due to the forthcoming final hearing in this matter, but long-term this contact arrangement is not going to work.

B suggested that she and/or her husband could supervise P’s time with A in A’s house in England. Whilst she conceded that there had been an incident when P was visiting her home in North Wales with the mother and the grandparents present, she felt that the contact would be better in A’s home as in the event of P’s behaviour deteriorating P could go to her sensory room to calm down. It struck me that this was a properly thought-out plan, with B also being willing to transport P to A’s home. I invite the local authority to give serious consideration to this offer, as it would appear to me to accord with P’s best interests. It could start off perhaps with simply a day trip and could move on to one or two nights, which I consider would not be overly burdensome for B and her husband. I believe B would take her supervisory duties seriously and, whilst I have not met her husband, it is clear from the evidence that he is a man who has tried to talk sense to A in the past and that he would also put P’s best interests first. I will deal now with the injunction.

I have already discharged the injunction against B. I consider that the injunction, as amended, should remain in place against A. The grounds, which I addressed in my previous judgment for the making of such an injunction, remain satisfied. I have made serious findings against A and the evidence is that A’s behaviour appears to escalate around the time of court hearings. I hope that things will calm down once these proceedings are at an end, but there is no guarantee and I invite submissions as to the duration of said order.

I have no objection to my judgment being published, but it must be very carefully redacted so as to reduce the risk of jigsaw identification. I do not consider that the places identified in this judgment should be published. It is important that F does not discover where A and P are living.