Essex County Council v F1 & Ors

This case concerns two children, A, soon to turn 16 years of age and B aged 6.

They are both the children of X, their mother, who sadly died in 2023. A’s biological father is F2. His parents separated about the time of his first birthday. A was brought up in Eastern Europe. His parents were Eastern European nationals. Following the separation of his parents, he continued to live there with his mother.

At some stage the mother formed a relationship with F1, and they married abroad in 2017. F1 lived in England although he too is Eastern European and following the marriage, A moved with his mother to live in England.

In 2019 B was born to the mother and F1.

The two children lived with their mother and F1 until the mother’s death from an illness. Thereafter they continued to live with F1 until the events in March 2024, since when they have been in foster care.

The applications before me are those of the local authority for a care order in respect of both children and there have been recent applications taken out by F1 for an order that he be granted parental responsibility of A and that A be given permission to change his surname to the same surname as F1.

The local authority and the children’s guardian have been parties throughout these proceedings. F1 has also been an active party throughout. He has plainly been a difficult client because at trial he was on his fourth firm of solicitors. It was not encouraging when on the second day of this hearing I was told that F1 wished to dispense with Mr Wauchope and solicitors but fortunately that was averted. It was with dismay that I learnt that before judgment was handed down but after submissions, F1 discharged his lawyers and appeared in person today.

It became apparent that the guardian and A held different views as to what the best outcome for A should be and accordingly A has been separately represented by his own lawyers at this hearing. F2 has taken no part in these proceedings. Despite numerous orders he has not filed a single statement. His lawyers have for a considerable period of time been without any instructions and I granted their application to come off the record.

There was a limited amount of cooperation between F2 and social services at the start of the proceedings. A told me when he spoke to the court, of which more later, that he had seen his birth father three times since F1’s arrest in 2022, of which only one occasion had been since he was taken into care. About two weeks ago, according to A, he asked F2 by telephone if he was coming to court and F2 replied that he was not. In the course of his call, A said that he told F2 of his wish to change his surname and for F1 to have parental responsibility, to which F2 made no reply.

The court has received no communication from F2 and following two unless orders granted respectively by Arbuthnot J and me, requiring him to file some evidence, F2 was discharged as a party.

From about October 2021 there was an exchange of text messages between F1, who was then a taxi driver, and youths including two boys aged 14 or 15. These are said to have a sexual content to which I will return. In June 2022 they came to be noticed by an adult relative of one of the boys who referred the matter to the child’s social worker. In turn that was reported to the police who informed Essex social services. There had been no social services involvement with F1 or the family prior to this time.

On 9 July 2022 F1 was arrested for causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity and engaging in sexual communication with a child.

The police attended at the home address and seized various items including a balaclava and a bag containing ropes, masks and a belt. These were for the use in bondage in which F1 liked to indulge as the victim.

A child and family assessment raised concerns about the lack of acknowledgement of F1 for his actions. This was mirrored by the children’s mother.

At a family group conference on 28 November 2022, F1 refused to engage. He was referred for a risk assessment to enable professionals to gain a better understanding into the potential risks that he posed.

On 3 January 2023, after a period of illness, the children’s mother died. There is a dispute as to how and when the children came to be told of her death.

On 23 January 2023 there was a strategy discussion.

It is unnecessary to go through each of the meetings held by social services. Suffice it to say, that but for rare exceptions, F1 did not attend meetings to which he was invited. The assessment process began and for F1, that meant three separate assessments, namely a sexual offence risk assessment, a parenting assessment and a psychological assessment.

A common theme runs through these assessments. In all of them, F1 was challenging. He accepted no criticism. He has sought to dominate meetings and avoided many questions put to him by professionals. This is not to overlook that the process was inevitably both difficult and embarrassing for him. But, his antipathy towards all professionals is very striking. This includes not only the assessors, but also the schools at which the children attended and the children’s guardian, who was the recipient of over 400 communications from him.

In part, because of the difficulties that F1 presented, the process of obtaining the expert reports from the sexual offence risk assessors, the parenting assessment and the psychological assessment all became delayed.

On 5 occasions from September - December 2023, B made allegations that her father F1 had hit her. The actions were described by her as being like a punch to various parts of her torso or face.

In respect of both sets of allegations, no further action was taken by the police. Either one or both of the boys involved in the tying up of F1 did not wish to become involved in any criminal proceedings. This is not difficult to understand in the light of their involvement in the activity and in what F1 alleges was an attempt to rob him and a threat of blackmail. As far as B’s allegations were concerned, they were not repeated to the police and there was no sign or other medical indication that she had been assaulted.

F1 declined to engage in any part of the child in need plan or attend the child protection conferences. He was unwilling to accept any support. Because he would not engage or accept that there was any justified criticism to be made against him, the decision was ultimately taken on 6 March 2024 to issue care proceedings. F1 was not told of that decision but he had been warned that if he continued not to engage then proceedings would be issued.

On several occasions F1 had said to the social worker that he would move to where he could not be found and take the children with him. The local authority interpreted that as a threat that he might move abroad. Having taken the decision to issue care proceedings, airports were told by the local authority that the children were not to be taken abroad.

F1 had been told by social workers that if he planned to take the children abroad he must tell them of the details of where they would be staying, flights etc. As Easter 2024 approached, B had told her social worker that they were going somewhere during the school holiday but she did not know where. Both A and F1 said that there were no plans to travel out of the country during the Easter holidays. Since social work involvement began, the family had been abroad on several occasions and returned without incident. Whilst social services had not been given the full details that they wished, they had always been made aware of the proposed travel. However, I accept that they were not told of a proposed visit to go abroad in Europe over the Easter 2024 holidays.

On 31 March 2024 the family arrived at the airport to take a flight abroad in Europe. They were picked up on the police computer as being unauthorised to travel in the light of the care proceedings about to be issued and they were stopped from boarding the plane.

What happened thereafter should never have happened. Unfortunately, the flight was to be taken on a weekend and there was only an out of hours social worker available. The airport police contacted the social worker but it is unclear what transpired. What is known is that the police exercised their powers of emergency protection and the children were removed from the care of F1 and immediately placed with foster carers.

This was a tragic start to these proceedings. It would have been far more appropriate if at the airport the family was simply refused permission to board and on the next day, the Monday, the matter would have been capable of easy resolution as F1 had return tickets to the country he wished to take the children for what was going to be a 9 day holiday staying with relatives, for a much needed break for the family. The local authority accepts that if told of the travel plans in advance it would have raised no objection.

It is easy to imagine that F1 became uncooperative with the airport police and failed to help find any acceptable form of compromise. Two days later the local authority commenced care proceedings in the Family Court at Chelmsford and on 3 April 2024 interim care orders were granted. Since then the children have remained in foster care, initially together but since 11 June 2024 in separate foster placements.

The situation of the children was never so grave as to justify their emergency removal in the way that it happened. It did them and F1 a serious disservice. I stress, however, that my comments do not mean that I regard the institution of proceedings as unjustified. I shall return to this.

I heard from the following witnesses in order

At an earlier case management hearing, directions were made for A to give evidence. A list of questions was to be prepared by all the advocates and subject to judicial approval, those questions were then to be asked of A by his own advocate. By the time the case began, all the parties had agreed that they did not wish to ask A any questions but there were three aspects of the threshold findings sought to which A’s evidence would be particularly relevant. After discussion with all parties, it was determined that questions would be asked on those three topics only. I was told that A wanted to speak to me and I decided that after dealing with the three issues, I would then give A the opportunity to tell me that which he particularly wanted me to hear, albeit that I along with others in the case, was fully aware of what his views were.

Those three areas were as follows:

My impression of A was favourable, in line with the views of others who have dealt with him. He is regarded by his school as one of the brightest boys of his year and he is studying for his GCSEs. He spoke clearly and did not seem to me to be in any way overawed by the occasion. A was described later in the hearing by a witness as being compliant and in general terms I think that is correct. He struck me as a nice and focussed young man. I commenced his evidence by explaining to him what my role was and how I would approach the case, giving proper weight to his evidence among the many factors that I had to consider. His counsel and solicitor were in a room at the solicitor’s office and were connected remotely to the court in the RCJ where the other professionals and F1 were situated. The camera in the courtroom remained focussed on me.

In closing submissions on behalf of A, his counsel emphasised to me the closeness between the two children despite the age gap and that it would break his heart if he returned home but B did not. He wants to see as much of her as possible.

Pursuant to s.31 of the Children Act 1989:

“(2)

A court may only make a care order or supervision order if it is satisfied—(a) that the child concerned is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm; and

(b)

that the harm, or likelihood of harm, is attributable to—

(i)the care given to the child, or likely to be given to him if the order were not made, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give to him; or

(ii)the child’s being beyond parental control.”

The test is an objective test. The burden of proof is upon the local authority who seek the finding. The standard of proof is the balance of probabilities.

I have to weigh up all the evidence that I have heard, expert and lay. I do not consider any piece of evidence in a vacuum. I look at each piece of evidence on its own and also as to how it fits in with the other evidence. Written and oral evidence will be considered alike.

Of the utmost importance is the evidence of both A and F1. F1 is at the core of this case and I give particular weight to what he has said and my assessment of it.

It is only if the court finds that the threshold is crossed does it go on to consider whether or not to make an order and if so, what order.

There has been a wholly excessive delay in this case. It is now on something like week 89. I recognise that the target of 26 weeks was never going to be achieved, in part because of F1’s refusal to cooperate in the various assessments that were taking place. It was only when this case came to the attention of the presiding judge for the area that urgent steps were taken to have the case listed and it was allocated to me. This delay has plainly been contrary to the interests of the children and has contributed to F1’s intense frustration. Further delay has been occasioned by the case being underestimated in terms of the time that is required, albeit that this has only added a couple of weeks to the timetable.

I shall now deal with the contentious factual issues, so far as I can in a chronological order by reference to the Threshold Findings sought.

F1 strongly objects to any suggestion that he has been involved in sexual misbehaviour. The factual situation now appears to be reasonably clear. In his role as a taxi driver F1 used to drive a number of young people aged between about 15-20 years. Some of the drives were for quite long distances so that on other occasions he did not always charge members of the group for short journeys. F1 joined a WhatsApp group which they had set up. It was in his capacity as a driver that he came to be aware of the two adolescents who were in his car when the events took place.

He arranged with them that in exchange for tying him up he would let them drive his car. It seems clear that he was aware that they did not have a driving licence. He says that the two youngsters got into his car and he drove them to a secluded place. They then tied him up, gagged him and blindfolded him with the equipment that he had brought with him. They then drove around for a relatively short period of time with F1 lying on the back seat. F1 says that it was only after he was tied up that he realised that the two, or at least one of them, was likely to be underage. He said that until he had heard the youngsters’ voices it had not occurred to him that they might be underage. In fact, they were probably 14 or possibly just 15 but I cannot be precise as I have not been given dates of birth of the individuals or the precise date of the event.

I do not accept that F1 was unaware of the approximate age of the boys. They were all members of a group of youngsters and he must have been aware that there was at least a significant chance that they were aged under 16. After all, that one of them had accused him of being a paedophile was the strongest of clues.

F1 eventually accepted that what he did was irresponsible as of course they may have had an accident. But, he strongly objects to the suggestion that messages that he sent to the youngsters or the actions in which he was engaged with them can properly be described as sexual communications or acts. The fact that what he did gave him sexual satisfaction is to his mind immaterial. I disagree.

He also bridles quite unreasonably at the police investigation being described as being into an allegation of sexual offences on the basis that he was only arrested for investigation. This is an artificial distinction.

F1 says that he has a history of having people tie him up over about the past 7 years and they included two mistresses and his ex-wife. He says that other than his deceased wife (who expressed her distaste at being involved) and his ex-wife, no one has tied him up in the family home and they were only involved when the children were not in the property. When he was arrested he told both A and his current wife that the police wanted to ask him questions about passengers in his taxi carrying drugs. He says that this was a lie that he invented to protect his wife.

One of the many things that is worrying about F1’s account of these events is his total failure to understand that his behaviour produces any justified concerns. He says that the individuals only tied him up once but that is little reassurance when he says that the experience was unsatisfactory for him as they did not tie him up well enough.

His behaviour caused considerable concern to the two social workers carrying out the sexual offences risk assessment. Their particular concerns were that:

They concluded that there was a significant risk of his exploiting his own children and they pointed out that children are more likely to be abused by those known to them than those they do not know.

F1 robustly rejected the suggestion that he might abuse his own children. He points out that an examination of his electronic devices did not reveal any access to or obvious interest in child pornography and I agree that there is no evidence of him ever having involved either child in such activities. I am sure that is his current state of mind but that does not mean it might never change. A does now know the truth of F1’s behaviour as he was, perfectly properly, told by a social worker.

The risks are twofold, first that he might involve A in his behaviour and secondly, that A or B might observe F1 being tied up. I consider that either event is possible but that I do not regard either event as likely. But, of course if it did happen the emotional harm would be significant.

I am entirely satisfied that F1 has done nothing to foster the relationship between A and his biological father and has expressed his low regard of F2 in unrestrained terms. In doing so, he was doing no more than A’s mother did and I accept the evidence of F1 that before her death she expressed a firm view that she did not want F2 playing a part in A’s life.

F1 has not actually, so far as I can tell, actively stopped A seeing or contacting his father but he has done nothing to encourage it unless for a purpose that suits him, such as seeking agreement to parental responsibility being granted to F1, which F2 rejected. I accept that F1 has described F2 as an idiot and uneducated.

I agree that F2 has made little effort to participate in A’s life but it is unfortunate that F1 is unable to see the benefit of A having a relationship with his biological father.

It has been difficult to assess the evidence on this, in part because of language difficulties. A according to his school records told the school that he found out about his mother’s death three days after it happened through Facebook. Yet F1 says that A never had Facebook and that he was in the car with A when the hospital rang to tell them of the children’s mother’s death. I found his account credible and I accept it.

On the other hand, it is clear that the death of B’s mother was kept from her for a considerable period of time. F1 said that he wanted her not to be told until she could understand it better, bearing in mind her young age. I accept that A told the social worker that he was struggling to grieve for his mother because he still had to pretend, the best part of a year after her death, that she was alive when in the presence of B (see core group note of 26 February 2024) and that he worried for B when she found out about the death. I reject F1’s evidence that he told her after a period of some 2-3 months, because of what A said and also because the records indicating that B was encouraged to believe that her mother was still alive when she spoke on the telephone to her mother’s sister to whom her mother had a great resemblance.

I find that F1 did not tell B until well after the event that her mother had died and that this approach put damaging pressure on A who had to go along with this charade. That said, recognition must be given to the fact that F1 was in a very difficult position and no doubt was struggling to cope with his own grief.

Between 7 September 2023 – December 2023 there were some 5 occasions when it is noted in the school records that B said that she was hit by her father and that her father was angry. F1 denies that he has ever struck his daughter and that the most that he was prepared to accept was that on an occasion he was irritated by B’s slowness in getting ready for school. On each occasion the safeguarding teacher at school looked at B and did not see evidence of any blow. Nobody saw either a mark or a bruise. I accept that B said these things and that F1’s scornful dismissal of these concerns was inappropriate. However, I do not find that F1 did assault B, in particular because of the absence of any form of mark and because of the considerable delay that was observed in B’s linguistic ability at that age, albeit quickly later made up, which made her accounts not always easy to follow.

I do accept that at times he became cross with B and upset her. I deal with this further later on. The combination of his own personality and the severe pressure of dealing with the illness and then death of his wife at times became too much for him. His reported reaction that “there must be something wrong with her head” when she made the allegations does him no credit.

F1 accepts that on a number of occasions, he says relatively few, he left B on her own in the house when he went to deliver A to school. He told her that she was being watched from heaven by her mother. He should have known that being left on her own scared B and was dangerous and this should not have happened. He was also wholly resistant to receiving help which he plainly needed for B, for example, in the provision of underpants when she came one day to school without them and shoes when they needed replacing.

F1 would not accept that he was having difficulties coping with B. The health visitor noted him saying (February 2023) that B is “aggressive, biting and angry”. This behaviour was not seen in nursery. When asked about it, he said that he would remove B from the school.

The core group meeting of February 2024 records that B was often late for school and was picked up late. At times she was in pain but with no relief provided by her father. B was described as confused and missing her mother, tearful and wetting herself. Every offer of help made to F1 was refused.

This is all part of F1’s determination that there can be no criticism of his parenting and that everything will be done by him alone without outside interference, notwithstanding the trouble he was plainly having.

F1 had been told on a number of occasions by social workers that if he wanted to travel abroad with the children he had to tell social services where he was going and provide details. He accepts that he was aware of this requirement. On a date in March 2024 he arrived at the airport with the children to fly to Europe where the family planned to stay with relatives for about a week. Social services had alerted the airport authorities that F1 should not be allowed to travel with the children because they had by then already taken the decision that care proceedings were about to be instituted. There was no port alert or court order that had been obtained by social services to stop travel.

F1 quite deliberately decided that he was not going to tell social services of his travel plans. He took the view that he was under no obligation to do so regardless of what they said. He was quite unaware that they had taken steps to try and stop his travel. At the airport he was told that he could not travel.

This sort of informal travel ban is unacceptable. If the local authority wished to stop the children leaving the country, they should have obtained an injunction and the family would have known where they stood. I do not regard the fact that F1 did not have parental responsibility to take the children out of the country as being decisive in any way when he had done so with local authority approval at least twice before.

What happened thereafter is both very concerning and regrettable. Because it was a Sunday the social worker was not available and matters were conducted between the police and the out of hours social worker. It is clear to me that F1 was indignant. I am sure he did nothing to help the situation. Police footage (which I have not seen) apparently records him telling A to run away and blaming him for speaking to the social worker. Whether or not he told the children to misbehave is not something I need determine.

F1 was told that he needed to take the children to Social Services voluntarily or the police would exercise their powers of removal. He refused. Having spoken to the social worker, the police exercised their powers of protection and the children were removed into care at the airport. It is not clear what the emergency was or the significant harm threatened so as to satisfy the test provided by s.46 Children Act 1989. It was the opposite of working in partnership with the parent as the Court of Appeal guidance requires.

Two days later on 2 April 2024 the local authority instituted care proceedings and obtained an interim care order.

It is appalling that the local authority permitted matters to escalate in the way that they did. I asked the social worker why when she came to work the following day and learnt of what had happened she simply didn’t see F1, find out what his travel plans were, which would have revealed that he had return air tickets for a week’s time, and then let the holiday take place at the home of the relatives.

Her unsatisfactory response was that matters had moved on and that the children had been taken under police protection. This is of course the exact opposite of the working together that should take place between the family and the authorities.

Neither the police, the local authority nor F1 come out of this with credit. It is even more regrettable that an interim care order was made when it seems to me that the position could perfectly easily have been held by the removal of passports. There was no good justification in my view for such extreme actions to be taken and then not reversed. Inevitably it has caused enormous damage to the relationship between F1 and the local authority and must have been very distressing to all three members of the family.

Contact has taken place weekly for an hour and a half between F1 and the two children. Until June 2024 the children were in the same foster home but since then they have been separated, reunited generally speaking only for weekly supervised contact, although there have been some additional visits between them arranged by the two sets of foster carers who know each other. The contact records display a consistent picture. F1 does not disguise his dislike for any form of authority. If the contact workers seek perfectly properly to give guidance during the contact visits, this is resented.

F1’s primary focus in contact is often upon A. He will on occasions speak to A in their native language. He heavily engages A in the proceedings, showing him documents and telling him what to say. B is often left to her own devices and engages much more with A than she does with her father. If she wanders off or accidently does something that should be properly controlled by a parent, F1 has been seen on occasions not to intervene in any way at all. At times she screams because of lack of attention. The clear picture emerges of B having a significantly closer relationship with A than with her father.

At times the quality of contact has been good but at others F1’s contact is seen by him as an opportunity to ventilate his grievances to the children and question them about what they have said to social workers. He has been told on countless occasions not to do this but he pays no attention.

Contact has been particularly difficult for B as I set out later.

A allies himself completely with F1’s views. I have seen letters purportedly written by A. Having seen A and having read many communications from F1, I am confident that the particular communications that were written in April 2025 and on 3 June 2025, were authored by F1, notwithstanding they appear to be sent by A. I simply do not accept that A aged 15 would have written phrases like:

All these are consistent with F1’s screed and I have no doubt that they are simply a reflection of what F1 has told A to write. F1 accepts that he has shared court documents with A and that can only have been harmful to him. There appear to be no boundaries which F1 observes to protect A from exposure to his views of this litigation.

A further example of his involvement by F1 in the proceedings is shown by his insistence on A going to Social Services’ office to deliver the message his father had given him and unsurprisingly being completely at sea.

Both children love F1 and he loves them.

A has repeatedly made it clear that he wants to return to live with F1 and B. There is no doubt about his view. It has been consistently expressed. On some four or five occasions in April-May 2025 he has absconded from the foster home and made his way back to F1. On two occasions recovery orders were made although on only one of them were the powers exercised.

When he has finished his GCSEs next summer he intends to attend college.

This is not to suggest that he has anything other than a good relationship with his foster carers. They have described him as the easiest foster child that they have dealt with and I have no doubt that he is a pleasant and compliant companion in their home. A is anxiously awaiting the result of this case and he would be very disappointed if not allowed to go and live with F1. I agree that he may vote with his feet if that were the conclusion, although he is not someone who in my estimation is likely to rebel.

B has told the guardian that she wants to stay with her foster carers and see her father when she is older. Separately she has said that she wants to live with her father when she is 7. I am satisfied that insofar as her wishes are material, she wishes to stay where she is. She is well settled in foster care and making excellent progress.

The foster carers have been having real difficulty with B in the period immediately surrounding contact visits. B becomes dysregulated and struggles both immediately before and for some days after contact. If for some reason contact does not take place, for example because of holidays, these disturbances do not happen. I am in no doubt that contact upsets her.

Whether this is due to the inevitably conflicted situation in which she finds herself or the way that F1 handles contact is not clear, but it is probable that both factors come into play.

He is a man of strong feelings which he does not keep to himself. Throughout the evidence of others he gesticulated and made his feelings plain. When he gave evidence he was dogmatic and conceded nothing. He is quite unable to see anything wrong in the way that he has parented A and B or acted during the proceedings and the run up to them. He is lacking in insight and imagination. His sense of outrage drowns out any more considered views.

I must pay tribute to Mr Wauchope. In spite of a perpetual commentary from his client who ceaselessly interrupted his presentation, Mr Wauchope remained at all times courteous and calm. I was very grateful to him for his professional handling of the case.

F1 makes a particularly strong point that the local authority knew of the complaint about his sexual conduct in summer 2022 and had the result of the sexual offence risk assessment in September 2023 but did not remove the children for 6 months after that.

He believes the local authority has behaved maliciously. He sees a conspiracy between social workers, the police and the guardian. He bombards those who take a contrary view to him. I agree with this passage taken from the clinical psychologist’s report:

Although this is very critical, in my view it is accurate. That said, there is no significant criticism to be made of him in terms of his physical care of the children, bearing in mind the difficult circumstances that pertained following his wife’s death. I have no doubt of his love for the two children and that physically he has provided for them at a level which has been good enough. The anxiety is his emotional treatment of them.

Since the events which led to the loss of his taxi driver’s licence F1 has obtained other employment as a driver.

Until recently the local authority was seeking a placement order in respect of B so that she could be adopted. This application did not find favour with the guardian and when the case came to me for the first time on a pre-trial review I shared the guardian’s view that this was a misconceived application. In particular, the fact of B’s close relationship with A would make the application very difficult. I am pleased to record that the local authority took onboard the points made by the guardian and endorsed by me and the application was withdrawn before the final hearing started.

It is clear to me that the threshold is passed. I find that on the relevant date, namely 2 April 2024, the children were likely to suffer significant emotional harm due to the care provided to them by F1, it not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give them:

I have found this an extremely difficult balancing act. A is doing very well in foster care but he wishes strongly to return to F1. The concern of all the professionals is that F1 is such a dominating and controlling man that A will not be able to develop his own personality and views. This is by far the greatest concern of the professionals rather than the risk, for example, of sexual harm. The local authority and CG say that so strong are F1’s views that A will have no opportunity to develop his own views and will be pressured to adopt the antagonistic and dogmatic approach of F1.

They point to the need for A to be able develop his own personality and wishes and to be able to develop independent thought. Not to give him that opportunity is to deprive him of what will be his last chance.

I understand and to some extent share the concerns of the local authority and guardian. Equally I have to bear in mind A’s age and strongly expressed views. He will feel very upset if not allowed to go home and he may vote with his feet, although that is uncertain. He has made much progress over the last 18 months and the local authority say there is more progress to be made.

I agree also that F1’s attitude is not likely to change.

On the other hand, A is not willing to invest in developmental programmes that keep him away from home. His refusal of music lessons was one such example.

I am not convinced that keeping A in foster care will lead to anything more than holding the ring, rather than progress. To put it another way, he will simply be marking time. When seen on his own by the social worker he is pleasant and cooperative but when he does not get his way he blocks her. He of course has his own phone and rings F1 frequently. The suggestion that the court can isolate A from the pressures imposed by F1 is over-optimistic.

My approach must be proportionate. I do not think that it is right that a young person of nearly 16 years of age should be deprived of being able to go home as he so strongly wishes for fear that his emotional development will be retarded. I have no doubt that he will progress successfully in other areas of his life. His academic progress has always been good and his attendance at school has always been at a high level. He has not shown any behavioural issues within the care of either F1 or his foster-carers and subject to a satisfactory supervision and parenting agreement I will discharge the interim care order. Knowing that this was much in my mind, at the end of the evidence and in the enforced adjournment before submissions I required the local authority to draft a supervision plan and agreement so that could be considered before the parties addressed me.

In fact there was not that much in dispute. F1 would accept a supervision order being made in respect of any child returning home on the following basis:

The local authority and Guardian have little confidence that F1 will abide by the conditions. His suggestion that each visit be recorded so as to provide an accurate record was not helpful or consistent with the building of any bridges. It would be foolish for me to assume that it will be plain sailing but I do not think that I should disregard what he says he will agree to.

F1 has applied for parental responsibility of A, who is of course the child of F2. It is agreed that if I determine that A may return home, then F1 should be granted parental responsibility. This follows automatically by operation of s.12(2) Children Act 1989. Even without this statutory provision, bearing in mind that the only adult with parental responsibility for A is his biological father with whom he has minimal contact, I regard it as right and in A’s best interests, that his psychological father, F1, should also have parental responsibility.

F1 took out an application that A be permitted to change his surname to that of F1. It is what A wants and it would mean that he would have the same name as his mother and his sister. A calls F1 “dad”.

As F1 does not yet have parental responsibility for A, he had no status to make the application. I am told that if he had not done so, A would have made the application himself. I do not think that it would be helpful to the parties to duck the issue on the ground of the absence of jurisdiction as within a very short time a fresh application could be taken out by A.

I floated the idea of a double-barrelled surname so that both names would be part of his identity but this did not find favour with A who also pointed out that although he is always known as A, his first name in full is also double-barrelled.

These are powerful points in favour but I am reminded that he has always appeared on the school register as having the same surname as his biological father, F2 and this has caused no particular difficulty. A is about to be 16 and will be able in due course to change his name of his own volition. I think it right that the court should not interfere with him doing what he wants at that time rather than the court granting F1’s application. I am particularly influenced by the fact that he seems to be coping well with his existing registered name and I shall accordingly dismiss the application and leave it to A to deal with as he sees fit as he gets older.

B has been in care for some 18 months and has made excellent progress. Her speech has come on enormously. The only matter of significant concern is her behaviour around contact. It is of course arguable that this is a reaction to her not seeing more often people to whom she is close, namely her father and A. But it is the view of the guardian and social workers that it is more likely that B’s reaction reflects previous unhappy experiences and/or a fear that she might have to leave the foster home in which she has put down roots. It is proper to mention that the foster carers would in the event of a care order being made continue as her long-term carers.

There are longstanding concerns about the parenting standards offered by F1 to B, which of course include her complaints about her father’s behaviour towards her made to school and his relative apparent lack of interest in her during contact visits.

He has very limited empathy for her. When she made her allegations at school, his response was to give her a copy of the book “The boy who cried wolf”.

I am satisfied that F1 is not able to give B the emotional support and succour that she needs and which she receives in foster care and I make a care order in respect of her.

I am conscious that my decision leads to the continued separation of the two children. I have considered this carefully as it is not a course to be taken without careful consideration. But, the children have been apart for 18 months and their ages and needs are so different that this is in my view the best course.

The local authority proposals for contact, supported by the guardian, in the event of the findings that I have made are that there should be a 3 month break in contact between B and her father to do therapeutic work and that thereafter she should have contact to her father three times a year a year and to B on a monthly basis.

In my judgment this is an inadequate frequency. In particular it does not give sufficient weight to the closeness of the bond between the two children. The local authority ask that I should set out what the contact frequency is that the court thinks appropriate recognising the difficulty of the decision.

I am satisfied that the present level of weekly contact to her father and A is far too much for B to benefit from. The problem of her emotional upset needs to be tackled. I consider that there should be a 2 month moratorium of contact between B and her father to let the therapeutic work proposed by the local authority to commence. He can of course send a Christmas present and cards. Thereafter I consider that contact should commence on a monthly basis to F1 and on a fortnightly basis to A. Thus, once a fortnight A and B would meet and once every month A and F1 would together see B.

F1 and A must understand that if they use contact so as to undermine B’s security and this frequency proves upsetting to B it will need to be revised. It must also remain under review and be adjusted as B’s needs requires.

Subject to the contact proposals being changed, I approve the care plan.

F1 has written relentlessly to the courts and people in public life to publicise the wrongs that he feels done to him and the perceived inadequacies of the various professionals.

There is no evidence that his activities have yet caused any harm but the biggest anxiety is that F1’s campaign to expose injustice (as he perceives it) will unsettle the children, put their stability at risk and potentially expose them to embarrassment, particularly if identified as the children of the person with the proclivities set out.

It is important to strike the balance between the rights of all the parties to the litigation (whose interests differ) and between the principles of open justice and the rights to family life.

My anonymised judgment will be put on TNA but the parties will be provided with an unanonymised version. In any publication the following must not be identified