Skip to Main Content

Find Case LawBeta

Judgments and decisions since 2001

Caerphilly County Borough Council v M & Ors

Neutral Citation Number [2025] EWFC 200 (B)

Caerphilly County Borough Council v M & Ors

Neutral Citation Number [2025] EWFC 200 (B)

Neutral Citation Number: [2025] EWFC 200 (B).
Claim No: CF24C50447

Newport (South Wales) Family Court

Newport (South Wales) County Court and Family Court
5th Floor
Clarence House
Clarence Place
Newport
NP19 7AA

Date:4 July 2025

IN THE FAMILY COURT SITTING AT NEWPORT (SOUTH WALES)

Before:

HER HONOUR JUDGE SIÂN PARRY

Between:

CAERPHILLY COUNTY BOROUGH COUNCIL

Applicant

And

M

1st Respondent

And

F

2nd Respondent

And

The child A through their Guardian

3rd Respondent

Faye Bolger instructed by Caerphilly County Borough Council Legal Department for the Applicant

Angela Ricciardi instructed by GGP Law for the 1st Respondent

Lucy Leader instructed by Martyn Prowel Gartsides Solicitors for the 2nd Respondent

Katy Morgan instructed by Everett Tomlin Lloyd and Pratt for the 3rd Respondent

Hearing date: 4 July 2025

Approved Judgment

This judgment was handed down 4 July 2025 to the parties and by release to the National Archives

This judgment was delivered in private. The judge has given leave for this version of the judgment to be published on condition that (irrespective of what is contained in the judgment) in any published version of the judgment the anonymity of the children and members of their family must be strictly preserved. All persons, including representatives of the media and legal bloggers, must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so may be a contempt of court.

HER HONOUR JUDGE SIÂN PARRY

Introduction

1)

The Local Authority applies for Care Orders in respect of A, who is a young child (age redacted). The application is supported by the Children’s Guardian.

2)

At the Issues Resolution Hearing (IRH), both parents opposed the making of Care Orders and sought A’s return to the care of mother (“M”), However, prior to the commencement of this final hearing the father (“F”) altered his position. He no longer supported A’s return to M’s care consenting to the Care Order.

3)

At the final hearing M maintained her position until after the conclusion of her evidence when she then adopted a neutral stance.

4)

Despite this shift in the parent’s position there remains significant factual disputes between them which requires judicial determination, given their relevance to the assessment of risk and formulation of A’s future care planning.

5)

It is also necessary to address a number of serious failings on the part of the Local Authority. I consider it important to set them out in this judgment, both to provide a clear and objective record of events and to ensure that appropriate lessons are learned.

6)

I have prepared this written judgment with a view to publication. Accordingly, I have taken care to anonymise the proceedings and limit the inclusion of identifying information. Further submissions may be made in respect of any additional redactions required.

Background and previous proceedings

7)

A is the only child of M and F. Although A is biologically an only child, she was raised by M alongside several maternal half siblings until 2023 when all children were removed due to safeguarding concerns. Care proceedings were issued and in respect of A a Supervision Order was ultimately made in February 2024.

8)

In those previous proceedings the court found that the Section 31 Threshold was met as follows:

a)

Domestic Violence: There was a history of domestic abuse between M and F, including a serious assault on M by F which occurred in the presence of A and their siblings.

b)

Substance misuse: Both M and F were involved in the misuse of illegal drugs.

c)

Drug cultivation: the couple engaged in the cultivation of drugs in their property for financial gain.

d)

Non-cooperation with professionals: M and F demonstrated hostility, dishonesty, and a lack of cooperation with professionals including misleading them about the status of their relationship.

e)

Breach of safety plan: M breached a safety plan by allowing F to have contact with A without agreement or oversight by the Local Authority.

9)

A has a strong sibling bond with all maternal half siblings. Of relevance is that E was the subject of a care order in August 2023 and placed with Local Authority foster carers.

10)

The court extended A’s proceedings as M had demonstrated considerable progress by ending her relationship with F, recognising the professional concerns surrounding her parenting and obtaining abstinence from drugs. Following a positive Addendum Parenting Assessment A was made the subject of a Supervision Order in February 2024 with physical rehabilitation taking place in March 2024.

11)

During the later part of the proceedings F was on remand for drug offences and was expected to receive a custodial sentence. However, in March 2024 he received a suspended 2-year sentence and released.

Agreed chronology of events since A was placed with M under a Supervision Order

12)

Although much is disputed factually between the parties the following is an agreed chronology of the events since the Supervision Order was made in February 2024 and before these proceedings were issued.

13)

Beginning of March 2024

a)

A returned to M’s care

b)

F released from prison, presenting as homeless and accommodated in a hostel.

c)

F not aware of M’s address and M advised to keep it confidential.

14)

15 March 2024

a)

A Care and Support Plan was created, including a provision for an updated risk assessment regarding F’s contact with A.

15)

3 April 2024

a)

First supervised contact session between F and A, arranged by the Local Authority.

16)

Beginning of May 2024

a)

M moved to a new property.

b)

F helped M to move in.

17)

16 May 2024

a)

Social Worker visited M’s new home and noted a large dolls house. M told the social worker that F had dropped it off. This alerted the Local Authority that M had shared her address with F and he had visited the property.

18)

6 June 2024

a)

Second supervised contact between F and A.

19)

21 June 2024

a)

Third and final supervised contact session.

b)

Social worker indicated to both parents that unsupervised contact might be promoted which pleased F.

20)

Beginning of July 2024

a)

E, who was struggling in foster placement (including cannabis use), moved in with M and A at the request of the Local Authority.

21)

25 July 2024

a)

Social services draft a Safety Plan regarding F’s contact with A.

b)

Contact between F and A progressed to unsupervised despite F refusing to sign or even read the safety plan. M instructed by the social worker to make arrangements directly with F.

c)

M acted as “go-between” for F and social services, relaying messages such as F’s dissatisfaction with the 2-hour contact limit.

22)

August 2024

a)

M had an accident and due to her injury, she relied on F for physical and emotional support.

b)

The Local Authority was partially aware of F’s involvement and reminded M that F was only allowed at the property to collect A, per the Safety Plan.

23)

6 November 2024.

a)

E makes allegations to their social worker, including:

i)

F had been living at M’s property since July 2024 when F came out of prison (C4)

ii)

That there were loud and aggressive arguments between M and F.

iii)

M was intoxicated when she injured herself in August.

iv)

They have asked M if they can have cannabis from F and M says, “I’ll check now”.

b)

E shows the worker messages between themselves and M which they say confirms some of the allegations.

24)

7 November 2024

a)

The social worker attends M’s property to investigate the allegation that F was living at the property. M refused the social worker access to the upstairs of her property.

Issues for determination

25)

The court is invited to determine the following key issues:

a)

The current and past nature and status of the relationship between M and F.

b)

The extent to which either or both parents have been dishonest since A was placed back in M’s care in March 2024.

c)

Whether the threshold for making a care order is met and if so whether such an order is necessary and proportionate

d)

Should a care order be made in favour of the Local Authority?

e)

If a Care Order is made, the appropriate quantum, scope and conditions of parental contact, including whether a Contact Order should be made pursuant to section 34 of the Children Act 1989, and whether any restrictions on unsupervised contact are warranted.

The Parenting Assessment

26)

A parenting assessment was undertaken by an Independent Social Worker (ISW), who had assessed both M and F during earlier proceedings.

27)

In her assessment within the previous proceedings the ISW had concluded that M was unable to care for E and the other siblings but, in an addendum, assessment concluded A could be safely rehabilitated to M’s care, provided that a robust support plan was implemented.

28)

In her initial assessment for the current proceedings, the ISW maintained that M could continue caring for A. However, she qualified this view by stating that should the court find that M had resumed her relationship with F or had become involved in drug-related activity, then M would no longer be able to provide safe and appropriate care for A.

29)

When she prepared an updated assessment after M’s ongoing relationship with S was discovered she had revised her position concluding she could no longer recommend rehabilitation.

Position of the Parties

30)

The Local Authority seeks a Care Order with a plan for A to remain in Local Authority foster care. The current care plan provides for supervised contact only once a month, with no immediate progression to unsupervised contact. Any future changes would be subject to the Looked after Child (LAC) review process and further “robust” assessment.

31)

M initially opposed the making of a Care Order. However, following her oral evidence, she adopted a neutral stance and no longer actively opposes the application. M seeks contact at a higher frequency than that proposed by the Local Authority namely, once a fortnight.

32)

F initially supported M retaining the care of A. However, upon learning that M was in a relationship with an individual referred to as “S,” he altered his position and now supports A remaining in foster care under a Care Order.

33)

The Children’s Guardian aligns herself with the ISW’s recommendations. Preparing a Position statement after receipt of the addendum ISW report where she confirmed that she no longer supported rehabilitation to M, supporting the Local Authority’s application for a Care Order and agreeing the Care Plan, including the frequency of contact.

Allegations and Conflicting evidence

34)

The child E has made a number of serious allegations, which can be summarised as:

a)

That F has been residing at M’s home, with M and A since July 2024 which E believes coincides with his release from custody.

b)

That M and F frequently engaged in loud and aggressive arguments in A’s presence.

c)

That drugs were being used in the home, and that E would request that M obtain drugs from F

d)

That M was intoxicated at the time she sustained the injury. E alleges that F reacted angrily, resulting in a loud argument during which he used derogatory and abusive language towards M.

35)

The child A has informed the social worker that she “lives with mammy and daddy” suggesting that she perceives M and F to be cohabiting.

F’s evidence

36)

F’s evidence has been inconsistent and, at times, contradictory. In his initial statement, he claimed that he and M were not in a relationship but maintained a cordial and cooperative relationship for the purposes of contact. He stated that he occasionally assisted M with errands following her injury. He denied all of E’s allegations, asserting that E was fabricating them to harm M.

37)

In a subsequent statement F revised his position describing his involvement as co-parenting.

38)

After hearing M’s evidence, F gave his own evidence, during which he appeared visibly angry. He made several significant assertions, including:

a)

That he and M had never separated and had remained in a relationship throughout, including during the previous proceedings and when he was in prison.

b)

That M took over his drug dealing activities during his incarceration.

c)

That he stayed at M’s property immediately upon his release. Although he could not recall A’s whereabouts as he was “off his head on drugs.”

d)

That he pretended to be in a relationship with M to safeguard A, while simultaneously engaging in sexual relations with other women.

e)

That once unsupervised contact was approved by the Local Authority, he disregarded boundaries, stayed overnight and exercised contact with A without restriction.

f)

That he manipulated others to achieve his own objectives and would always lie “for A.”

g)

That he refused to sign the safety agreement regarding contact and did not even read it.

M’s evidence

39)

M acknowledged that she had not been fully truthful and open on a number of matters but maintained that she had not been in a relationship with F since their separation in late 2023.

40)

She confirmed that F was involved in drug dealing but denied any personal involvement. She admitted to relapsing into cannabis use around the time E returned to live with her.

41)

M accepted that her statement describing S as an ex-partner was inaccurate. In fact, they had gone on holiday together shortly after she filed that statement, without informing the Local Authority. She stated that she simply had not updated the position with her solicitors as they had separated when she gave instructions on the statement but by the time she signed the statement they had reconciled.

42)

Regarding contact between A and F, M stated that following the Local Authority’s approval of unsupervised contact in June 2024, she believed they could make arrangements as co-parents. She admitted to allowing F to have contact at her home and later permitting him to enter the home during handovers and after he had run errands for her as it was more convenient.

43)

Following her injury in August 2024, M relied on F for practical support, including shopping and errands, due to lack of alternative support. She denied that he stayed overnight or that they were in a relationship.

44)

M signed the written agreement with the Local Authority and was expected to relay information to F as he refused to engage with professionals.

45)

M accepted that text messages suggested she was in a relationship with F but was unable to provide a clear explanation. She also acknowledged that she and friends would occasionally share cannabis when they had it available.

Analysis and Findings

46)

The Burden of Proof on all matters is on the Local Authority. They must prove the matter to the civil standard, namely on the Balance of Probability.

47)

I remind myself of the principles in R v Lucas [1981] QB 720. Not every lie told by a party is necessarily indicative of guilt or wrongdoing. A person may lie for various reasons, including shame, panic, confusion or to protect someone else. The court must therefore exercise caution before drawing adverse inferences from dishonesty.

48)

In this case, F has openly admitted to lying in order to manipulate both professionals and M.

49)

M has been dishonest, either due to fear of the consequences of telling the truth or through deliberate misrepresentation.

50)

I am mindful that dishonesty in one area does not necessarily mean that a party has lied about all matters. In M’s case, this is particularly relevant when considering her relationship with F and the allegations of drug involvement.

51)

I accept F’s evidence that he has lied to manipulate others to achieve his own ends. However, I do not accept the entirety of his evidence. I find that aspects of his evidence were driven by anger and jealousy following the breakdown of his relationship with M, particularly considering her involvement with another man who is known to him. His motivation appeared to be to damage M’s case rather than to raise genuine safeguarding concerns.

52)

Some elements of F’s account are corroborated by statements made by both A and E to professionals, and I have taken this into account.

53)

I find that M has not been candid about her relationship with both F and S, and that she was not forthcoming about the presence of drugs in her home.

54)

I acknowledge that E is a young person with their own complex needs, including a history of dishonesty and drug misuse. Their allegations were made following the breakdown of their relationship with M and subsequent departure from the home.

55)

I find that the relationship between M and E was volatile and dysfunctional. While there were periods of mutual support, their interactions were frequently marked by conflict. Both agree that there were loud and aggressive arguments, some of which became physical. A would be aware of those incidents, which are likely to have been frightening and distressing for them.

56)

I find that M resumed the use of cannabis shortly after A was returned to her care and certainly by May 2024. Her use predated E’s return to the household. I do not accept M’s evidence that she did not use cannabis when caring for A and I find it likely that M would be under the influence of cannabis when caring for A.

57)

I do not accept F’s claim that he and M remained in a continuous relationship throughout 2023 and 2024. I accept that M ended the relationship during the assessment period in 2024 but was unable to maintain separation following F’s release from custody.

58)

I find that F exaggerated and fabricated parts of his evidence in order to discredit M. I accept his own evidence that he is willing to lie and manipulate both professionals and M and I find that willingness to lie and manipulate continued while he was giving his oral evidence.

59)

I find that F’s conduct was motivated, at least in part, by anger and jealousy over the breakdown in his relationship with M

60)

I accept the accuracy of the text messages from M’s friend “N” (page 33) which stated, “He lived with her again and it all got taken from him again and he’s pissed off.” This message supports the conclusion that M and F had separated but later reconciled and lived together following F’s release from custody.

61)

I find that M refused to allow the social worker to view the upstairs of her property during the visit on 07.11.24 was because there was evidence of F living in the property. It is the same reason that both parents failed to allow their phones to be analysed – because they knew that there was information contained on their phones which would establish that they were in a relationship.

62)

I further accept M’s account that, upon his release, F sent her ominous messages implying that he would jeopardise A living with M. I find that M was aware that she should have disclosed this to the Local Authority but she chose not to, deliberately jeopardising A’s placement with her.

63)

In relation to S, I find that M knowingly provided false information in her statement. I do not accept her explanation that she failed to consider the contents of the statement. I find that she deliberately misrepresented the nature of her relationship with S due to concerns that it would negatively impact her chances of having A returned to her care. I find that the relationship had not ended, and M would not have been truthful had she not been confronted with evidence from social media.

64)

I do not accept either parents account of how their relationship resumed. However, I find that M and F rekindled their relationship around May 2024. M relied on F for assistance in moving house, furnishing the property and other day-to-day tasks. This reliance increased following her injury in August but had already begun prior to that. I find that they concealed their relationship from professionals – and from A – until unsupervised contact was authorised. Not to protect A, but to avoid detection by the local authority.

65)

Further, I find that M was intoxicated when she sustained an injury in August 2024 and that is the reason she failed to go to the hospital that night. I find that there were loud, violent, and aggressive arguments between M and F and that A must have been aware of them. I find that A would have been frightened and distressed by such arguments.

66)

There is insufficient evidence to conclude that M was engaged in drug dealing for financial gain, however, I find she was embedded in a drug-using culture. She was known within her social circle as someone who could facilitate access to drugs and would share cannabis with people, including E.

67)

F has, by his own admission been misusing drugs since his release from prison and at a high level so that on occasions he would be “off his head”. I accept his admission as to the level and extent of his drug misuse.

68)

I will deal with the failings of the Local Authority in a separate section below. However, I am satisfied that those failings did not materially influence the conduct of the parents. That said, the lack of effective oversight, supervision and assessment likely emboldened M and F in their decision- making and behaviour while A was in M’s care.

The role of the Local Authority

69)

The Local Authority has accepted that there were a number of significant failings in the implementation and oversight of A’s supervision order. The most effective way to set out these failings is by reference to the commitments made in A’s Care Plan (February 2024) and E’s Care Plan (August 2023), and the extent to which those commitments were not fulfilled.

70)

The following provisions were included in A’s 2024 Care Plan:

a)

Upon F’s release, he should contact the local authority and the local authority will complete a risk assessment of contact with A

No such risk assessment was undertaken prior to the resumption of direct or unsupervised contact between F and A.

b)

It is the view of the Local Authority that A’s engagement in contact with F should be facilitated without the involvement of M

Despite this the Local Authority permitted the parents to manage contact arrangements independently without oversight or third-party involvement and without any formal assessment.

c)

During the supervision order review period discussions can take place with M in order to enable her to support A with their life journey as they develops. This will include future advice and planning for contact with F post the conclusion of the supervision order

These discussions did not take place.

d)

During the supervision order review period the Local Authority will work with the parents to identify a third person (who is acceptable to both parents) that can assist in supervision, supporting and facilitating contact sessions both direct and indirect with F to ensure the expectations and arrangements for contact are clear at the conclusion of the local authority’s involvement.”

This step was entirely overlooked. The Local Authority instead determined – without assessment – that the parents could manage contact arrangements themselves.

e)

Upon F’s release from prison the local authority will give consideration to undertaking a Care and Support Assessment.”

No such consideration was given, and no assessment was undertaken.

71)

E’s care Plan stated:

a)

M is unable to care for E ... the local authority would be significantly concerned for E’s welfare should they return to M’s care … it is clear that E has suffered significant harm through inconsistent care and adverse childhood experiences whilst … in the care of M and would continue to do so if they were to return to M’s care

Despite this no updated assessment of M’s capacity to care for E was undertaken, nor was any assessment made of the potential impact on A of E returning to live in the same household.

72)

Further, at the initial Supervision Review meeting on 8.03.2024 M was reminded to keep her address confidential from F. By May 2024, the social worker became aware that M had disclosed her address to F and that he had visited the home. Despite this, the Local Authority took no action and failed to treat this as a safeguarding concern.

73)

I acknowledge that I am not considering E’s case and do not have access to the full range of information available to the professionals involved in their care planning. However, the Local Authority accepts the above failings relating to E’s care planning and its impact on A.

74)

In summary, the Local Authority have failed in a number of significant respects. It did not adhere to its own Care Plan for A. While I accept that the Local Authority were not aware of the nature and extent of the parents’ relationship or of F’s co-parenting role while residing at M’s property and mother’s resumption of drug misuse, had it complied with its own stated plans and exercised appropriate oversight, it is likely that the parents’ deception would have been uncovered much earlier.

75)

Further, had there been a proper assessment of the impact on A of E returning to live with M and A it is unlikely that the move would have been permitted.

76)

If the Local Authority had undertaken the appropriate investigations and assessments, it is likely that A could have been spared or at least have limited, exposure to the volatile and unsafe environment created by the presence of both F and E in the home.

Welfare

77)

It is accepted by both parents that the Threshold criteria for establishing section 31 (2) Children Act 1989 are satisfied. In respect of the contested threshold matters I have addressed those above, and the local authority will produce a final Threshold Document incorporating the findings made within this judgment.

78)

In considering A’s welfare, I am satisfied that the only order capable of meeting A’s needs is the making of a Care order, with A to remain in the care of the local authority and placed with foster carers.

Care Plan and Contact

79)

I shall deal firstly with M’s request for contact at a frequency of fortnightly as opposed to the Local Authority Care plan of monthly. Contact must be in the welfare interests of the child and must support her long-term placement. In all the circumstances of the case I agree the analysis of the Local Authority and the Guardian that the proposed frequency of monthly is proportionate and in A’s welfare interests.

80)

The initial Care Plan presented to the Court included a detailed “route map to unsupervised contact.” The route map lacked a realistic understanding of the risks involved and failed to identify the type or scope of assessments required before unsupervised contact could be safely considered.

81)

While I acknowledge that A has a strong and positive relationship with both parents, the findings in this judgement make clear that unsupervised contact is not appropriate at this time and will have to be the subject of rigorous assessment before any unsupervised contact in the future will be in A’s welfare interests.

82)

Given the Local Authority's previous failures to assess – contrary to their own care plans- I have considered whether the court should exercise its powers under section 34(5) and (7) of the Children Act 1989 to make a contact order with conditions attached.

83)

Section 34(5) provides:

When making a care order with respect to a child, or in any family proceedings in connection with a child who is in the care of a local authority, the court may make an order under this section, even though no application for such an order has been made with respect to the child, if it considers that the order should be made.”

84)

Section 34(7) further provides:

an order under this section may impose such conditions as the court considers appropriate.”

85)

I have considered whether to make an order prohibiting unsupervised contact, thereby requiring the Local Authority to seek the court’s permission before allowing such contact to take place, thus ensuring thorough assessment is carried out prior to the commencement of unsupervised contact.

Conclusion

86)

This case has raised serious concerns regarding the breakdown of internal checks and balances within this Local Authority. However, I note that the Local Authority has now amended its Care Plan and taken steps to address the identified failings. I also remind myself that Parliament has conferred upon the Local Authority duties under the Children Act 1989 and associated regulations. The court should be cautious in interfering with or restricting the exercise of those duties under a Care Order.

87)

Having considered all relevant matters, I am satisfied that it would not be proportionate for the court to impose conditions restricting the Local Authority’s duty to promote contact in accordance with A’s welfare needs and in light of any assessments that will be carried out in accordance with the Care Plan.

88)

Accordingly, the court will make a Care Order in favour of Caerphilly County Borough Council with the usual directions. Additionally, I direct that the Local Authority shall ensure that any social worker assigned to work with this family as well as the Independent Reviewing Officer (IRO), be provided with a copy of this judgment.

Publishing the judgment and anonymity of professionals

89)

No party has raised any objection to the publication of this judgment, nor to the identification of the Local Authority. I agree that in the interests of transparency and accountability, the Local Authority should be named.

90)

I turn now to the question of whether any individual employees of the local authority – whose actions or omissions have been referenced in this judgment – ought to be identified.

91)

As Mrs Justice Lieven observed in Louise Tickle v Herefordshire County Council & ORS [2022] EWHC 1017 (Fam) at paragraph 78

“the powers of the Court to order anonymisation in relation to professionals need to be exercised with considerable care. Social workers are employees of a public authority conducting a very important function that has enormous implications on the lives of others. As such, they necessarily carry some public accountability and the principles of open justice can only be departed from with considerable caution.

92)

In this case A’s allocated social worker has not been available to attend the hearing. It was not considered proportionate to delay proceedings to secure their attendance, and I am therefore mindful that I have not heard directly from them.

93)

Similarly, E’s social worker was not required to give evidence, as there was no evidential dispute that required their attendance.

94)

The failings identified in this judgment have been accepted by the Local Authority. As I have already noted, the concerns relate to systemic shortcomings and a breakdown in internal checks and balances rather than the conduct of any one individual.

95)

Finally, there must be a concern that in such a small geographical Local Authority area, that if the different children's individual social workers from different teams are named that “jigsaw” identification of the family and thus the children become more likely.

96)

Further, I determine that the identification of the Guardian will also raise a real risk of identifying this family and these children.

97)

Considering the above, I am satisfied there is compelling reasons against naming the individual professionals involved in this case. Accordingly, I direct that they remain anonymous.

Document download options

Download PDF (268.7 KB)

The original format of the judgment as handed down by the court, for printing and downloading.

Download XML

The judgment in machine-readable LegalDocML format for developers, data scientists and researchers.