AB (Care Order), Re

AB is the much-loved 12-year-old son of (“Mother”) and (“Father”). He is equally loved by his maternal grandmother (“MGM”). AB lived with MGM from November 2022 until 11 December 2024, when he was placed in foster care. MGM describes him as humorous, loving and affectionate, a delightful young man to have around. AB has siblings JB and BB, both of whom live with different family members following earlier orders of this court.

The applicant local authority (“LA”), represented by Ms Rasul of counsel. The LA seek a final care order for AB, despite the lack of specific placement. They have amended their plans as to contact.

AB’s mother is represented by Mr Yeung of counsel. Mother opposes the care plan and supports MGM.

AB’s father is represented by Ms Peacock of counsel. He opposes the care plan and supports the MGM. He has been commended by the LA and Guardian for the way in which he handed AB’s removal into foster care. The court joins in commending him for putting AB first, in the most difficult of circumstances.

The MGM, and essentially the lead respondent, is represented by Ms Cooke of counsel. She seeks the return of AB to her care. She is married to the maternal grandfather (“MGF”). He is not a party and is not present in court.

The Guardian is Sophie Williams, represented by Mr Littlewood of counsel. She supports the care plan with the revisions as to contact.

The LA has been involved with the family since 2012. Issues relate to Mother’s choice of partners, chaotic lifestyle, substance use, lack of safety in the home, neglect, mental health and engagement with professionals. Early Help were involved between 2012 and 2021 and then the Family Partnership Service. The family has moved through various stages of child protection planning and the PLO. On 23 November 2022, JB went to live with his paternal grandmother, BB with his father and AB with MGM.

Proceedings were issued in April 2023 and have continued to date. The court granted an interim care order (ICO) for JB and BB and child arrangements order (CAO) for AB in MGM’s favour, alongside an interim supervision order (ISO). The LA brought AB’s case back to court on 11 December 2024 when this court sanctioned AB’s removal into foster care.

This final hearing was listed for four days. Oral evidence did not begin until day 2. Both Ms C and MGM were much longer in oral evidence than was anticipated.

During the hearing I refused the LA’s application to adduce evidence in rebuttal following MGM’s oral evidence.

The applications are brought under s31 of the Children Act so the LA must therefore satisfy me to the requisite standard that, as at the date of threshold, the child is suffering or is at risk of suffering significant harm. As Peter Jackson LJ said in Re B-T (A Child: Threshold Conditions) [2020] EWCA Civ 697, there are three elements to the harm required by the threshold condition in s31(2) CA 1989: it must be actual or likely; it must be significant; and it must be due to parenting that is not reasonable.

The burden lies on the LA to prove the allegations which it makes. The appropriate standard of proof is the simple balance of probabilities. Findings of fact must be based upon evidence, including inferences that can properly be drawn from the evidence, and not on suspicion or speculation. I must take into account all of the evidence and consider each piece of evidence in the context of all the other evidence. The binary principle applies. I am not bound by the cases put forward by the parties and may adopt a solution of my own, but I must be cautious when doing so and only do so where the evidence justifies it.

In Re B (Care Proceedings: Appeal) [2013] 2 FLR 1075 the Supreme Court re-examined the meaning of 'is likely to suffer' and concluded that the threshold of likelihood, namely 'a real possibility, a possibility that cannot sensibly be ignored having regard to the gravity of the feared harm in the particular case' is comparatively low. Risk of significant harm must be established on the basis of evidence and not assumptions or speculation about future behaviour. The local authority must not only prove on the balance of probabilities the facts on which it relies by calling witnesses who can speak to matters first-hand but must link the facts upon which it relies with the assertion that the child is at risk by demonstrating exactly why, on the given set of facts, the child is at risk of significant harm.

In Re B-S (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 1146,the then president set out the key principles of requiring proper evidence to assess all the options that are realistically possible. An adequately reasoned judgment is essential. I must consider all the relevant factors and give proper focused attention to the specifics. The exercise is holistic and not linear.

In Re H-W (Children: Proportionality of Care Orders) [2022] UKSC 17,the Supreme Court set out the requirements when considering harm. The court must assess the likelihood of harm, the consequences of such harm arising, the possible mitigating factors and the comparative welfare advantages and disadvantages of the options presented.

In undertaking its analysis, the local authority must bear in mind society's willingness to tolerate very diverse standards of parenting. With that issue in mind, I remind myself of the well-established principle set out by Hedley J in Re L (Care: Threshold Criteria) [2007] 1 FLR 1050.

Events which take place between the date of an application for a Care Order and the final hearing are admissible. It is a matter for me to decide how much weight to give them.

If a court concludes that a witness has lied about one matter, it does not follow that he or she has lied about everything. A witness may lie for many reasons, for example, out of shame, humiliation, misplaced loyalty, panic, fear, distress, confusion and emotional pressure. I should only take account of lies if there is no good reason or other established reason for the person to have lied. A lie itself cannot be direct proof of guilt. In cases where lies are relevant to welfare, I remind myself of the decision in Re K (Children: Placement Orders) [2020] EWCA Civ 1503, where Peter Jackson LJ set out the requirement to identify any link between lies and welfare. It is not sufficient for the court to simply conclude that a child has dishonest parents.

The court’s assessment of the parents and other carers of the child is very important. As Baker J (as he then was) said in Re JS [2012] EWHC 1370:

“The evidence of the parents and any other carers is of the utmost importance. It is essential that the court forms a clear assessment of their credibility and reliability. They must have the fullest opportunity to take part in the hearing and the court is likely to place considerable weight on the evidence and the impression it forms of them”.

In assessing credibility, I have regard to the decision of King LJ in Re A (A Child) (Fact-Finding [2020] EWCA Civ 1230. That case analysed the well-known civil decision in Gestmin and reminded courts of the need to be mindful of the pressures of giving evidence. I must assess all the evidence in a manner suited to the case before me and not inappropriately elevate one kind of evidence over another.

Hearsay evidence is admissible in family proceedings. As was held in Re A (Application for Care and Placement Orders: Local Authority Failings) [2015] EWFC 11, where a local authority is challenged on some aspect of its case and it is unable or unwilling to produce witnesses who can speak of matters first hand it may find itself in great, if not insuperable, difficulties if a parent not merely puts the matter in issue but goes into the witness box to deny it. The court's assessment of hearsay evidence must be taken in the context of its appraisal of the evidence generally. Where the evidence of a child stands only as hearsay, the court weighing up that evidence has to take into account the fact that it was not subject to cross-examination.

When it comes to welfare, AB’s best interests are my paramount consideration. I must apply the factors within the welfare checklist. I also remind myself of the presumption of parental involvement and no order principle. Any order I make must be reasonable, necessary and proportionate. AB and the adult parties have Article 8 rights.

In Re JW (Child at Home under Care Order) [2023] EWCA Civ 944,the Court of Appeal confirmed that a “care order at home” is permissible within s22C CA 1989. Paragraphs 158-162 of the PLWG report of March 2021 were endorsed. Such an order should only be made with exceptional reason. It will be “rare in the extreme’ that the risks of significant harm are sufficient to merit the making of a care order, but the risks can be managed with the child being the in the care of the parents.

In Re W (A Child) (Care Proceedings: Court’s Function) [2013] EWCA Civ 1227,the Court of Appeal held that a local authority was required to give a judge the requisite evidence to be able to undertake the welfare and proportionality evaluations. That included a description of the services that were available and practicable for each placement option.

The issues I must decide are any factual matters arising out of the evidence and whether AB should remain in foster care or return to the care of the MGM.

I have a trial bundle consisting of 1,155 pages plus additional documents including the Guardian’s final analysis.

Mr Nomir Ahmed (psychologist) assessed Mother on 17 March 2023. He concluded that Mother does not meet the criteria for a cognitive impairment.

Mother provided a sample for hair strand testing (“HST”) on 25 September 2023. The results are positive for cannabis and cocaine use. Cocaine levels were described as high.

Sarah Norris is an independent social worker well known to the court. Her first report is dated 18 August 2023. MGM told Ms Norris that MGF cooks batch meals for her and AB to eat during the week. Ms Norris described the dog as enthusiastic but not threatening. She assessed the maternal grandparents (“MGP”) as showing a good understanding of how they would meet the emotional needs of a child. She did not observe a preference for AB over his siblings. They have struggled with the proceedings. Ms Norris believes that the MGP’s lack of understanding of the process has impacted the perception of loyalty to Mother. She advised the LA to set out expectations clearly. They would benefit from training. They have insight into the LA’s concerns and have worked openly and honestly with her.

Ms Norris provided an addendum report on 22 March 2024. Her report notes active engagement with Total Wellbeing (with support forthcoming) and Talking Elephants. She observed contact and had to point out to Mother and MGM the impact of their conversations in the presence of children. MGP accepted that Mother should not have unsupervised contact but does come to their home to see AB.

Ms Norris sent an email on 27 August 2024. It is clear that Ms Norris was aware that Mother was attending the home, but no unsupervised contact was taking place.

The final document from Ms Norris is dated 7 November 2024. She was concerned about unsupervised contact, a lack of honesty and a lack of insight shown by MGM’s view that Mother could resume caring for AB. Ms Norris describes the lack of engagement by MGM as “most unfortunate” and appears to accept MGM’s contention that she would start courses on 30 October 2024. Two further comments are of note:

“For AB to continue to be placed in MGP’s care, it is essential they demonstrate that they accept the risks in respect of M’s parenting and do not allow contact, supervised or otherwise, with M outside of that which is agreed with the Local Authority”.

“If, however, they do not comply with the amended agreement, in particular, I would find it very difficult to support the ongoing placement of AB in their care as I cannot see how AB could be appropriately safeguarded”.

As events have somewhat taken over since Ms Norris filed her report, I shall read “remain in their care” as now meaning a return to their care.

Ms A (the first social worker) carried out an assessment of Mother using the “ParentAssess” model. Its conclusion was negative. It was updated in September 2023. She has also filed a number of witness statements.

There are several written agreements in the bundle. The first plan for Mother was dated 15 May 2023. It makes it clear that Mother is not to attend the placements of BB, JB or AB’s carers and, separately, must not stay overnight with MGM whilst AB is in placement. A plan for MGM is dated the same day. It makes clear that AB must not be exposed to adult communications about the ongoing proceedings. MGM is not to permit AB to stay overnight at Mother’s address or to allow her to stay overnight at her address whilst AB is there. There is to be no unsupervised contact. All contact outside Manor Centre must be supervised and can only take place after it has been agreed with the social worker.

There was a further written agreement on 10 April 2024. AB is not to be left unsupervised in Mother’s care.

The final working agreement is dated 24 September 2024 and was signed on 1 November 2024. It makes clear that Mother is not to visit or stay at the home and that all contact must take place at a contact centre.

I have a video and photograph, as referred to in the documentary and oral evidence.

Ms C is the allocated social worker. She has filed five statements. Her third statements set out the change of care plan and reasons, and her fourth statement is the substantive document in support of the care plan.

Ms C gave oral evidence. She told the court about AB being upstairs during visits and both Mother and MGM refusing to sign agreements. She recalled telling MGM that no unsupervised contact should happen. Ms C observed Mother hoovering the home. She is very concerned for AB’s safety as Mother and MGM are not being truthful. Ms C told the court about her experiences with dogs. She agreed that trust goes both ways and accurate reporting is necessary. MGM would not sign the written agreement as she wanted Mother to be in the house. MGM does not acknowledge that Mother is a risk. AB was living in an emotionally unstable environment and outcomes would be compromised. MGM would deflect discussion onto the unfairness on Mother and does not prioritise AB. She blames outside the family. Ms C accepted that the school had not reported harm to AB in MGM’s care.

MGM has filed five statements. They are undated and unsigned, but each was confirmed as being true on oath. Her final statement was produced ahead of the hearing on 11 December 2024. At paras 4 and 5, MGM states:

“4.

Having read through the Local Authority’s updating evidence, I want to be open and honest and admit I breached the Written Agreement and in hindsight I know I should not have done. On more than one occasion, AB has threatened to kill himself if he doesn’t see his mum. Recently, he has told me he will either kill or harm himself or punch someone if the social worker was to take him away from me…”

“5.

Given AB’s threats, I have felt compelled to give in and allow him to see his mum, even on occasions when I know he should not be seeing her…”

MGM gave oral evidence. She gave a heartfelt description of AB and Mother’s birth. She told the court that she did not cook well. She felt that she could work openly and honestly with the LA, adding “I just need advice and guidance”. MGM felt she had been open and honest with professionals but that it was difficult to know what they expect from her sometimes. MGM said that she was with Mother and AB in Asda. She was not present during the video, but MGF was packing in the house. MGM accepted throwing papers across the table but not directly at Ms C. She did not accept using her dog as a weapon. MGM thinks that Mother has made changes. She did not approve of Mr Marshall and did not know that they had been seeing each other until after his death. He was her drug dealer. MGM has asked Mother to consider having HST. Mother is heading towards where she needs to be and should be reconsidered in 6-9 months’ time. MGM accepted being emotional. She accepted the school’s account of their visit save for her leaving AB with Mother. She held her hands up to leaving AB unsupervised with Mother on one occasion when she was out and MGF had to return keys to work. She felt that AB had been “misunderstood or entrapped” into saying what he did. She believes that she signed another written agreement at the end of November. MGM accepted being very torn between Mother and AB but denied that she would turn a blind eye. There was no obvious evidence of Mother using drugs. MGM thought that “these two seem to stick together” (being PGM and Aunt).

I have read the statements of Mother and Father. Neither wished to give evidence as they support MGM. No party actively sought to compel Mother to give evidence by the conclusion of MGM’s evidence. I agreed with that view and saw no purpose in compelling her.

The Guardian has filed two analyses. In her first report, the Guardian criticises the social worker by saying “I have also had significant difficulties engaging with the social worker who has at times given me inaccurate information, not always consistently engaged with me or responded to my requests nor has made me aware of significant incidents at the time they have occurred”. The Guardian comments upon the alleged sightings of unsupervised contact. She was troubled by AB being exposed to adult conversations and emotions. Her recommendation depended upon MGM’s engagement and compliance with a written agreement.

In her second report, the Guardian sets out an update from the school only two days after AB was removed from MGM. She considers the clearly worded written agreement to have been breached on several occasions during the “testing period”, including restricting access to AB and dishonesty. MGM lacks insight and is unable to prioritise AB over Mother. MGM has not engaged with any of the recommended services. Mother has refused to undergo HST again. The Guardian accepts that a change of placement would cause some disruption to AB. The Guardian was satisfied with significant improvement in terms of engagement by Ms C. MGM did not sign the written agreement until 1 November 2024. She and Mother has been argumentative and highly emotional at core group. They exacerbate each other’s emotions. MGM is defensive and attempts to redirect.

The Guardian concludes that “MGM appears completely consumed by her own emotional needs and the injustice she feels she and her daughter have suffered. In turn it seems to have left very little room for her to consider AB’s emotional needs and make the necessary changes. Until MGM shows genuine openness and willingness to engage with therapeutic services, I do not envisage that things will change”. She also states that “AB has experienced inconsistent and at times neglectful, frightening care and it is important moving forward that he is safeguarded from this”.

The Guardian gave oral evidence. MGM’s evidence furthered her concerns. She described it as “contradictory and worrying and showing a complete lack of insight into the risks Mother poses”. The Guardian described MGM’s evidence as being just like (her conduct at) core group meetings. AB is surrounded by a lot of negative adult emotion. The Guardian does not see why Father or AB would fabricate. She refers to the schools (plural) considering MGM to be emotionally dysregulated. MGM works well with [schoolteacher]. Mother and MGM trigger each other. They are not honest. AB will try to protect his family. MGM has voiced her dissatisfaction at the written agreement in every meeting. The dog is boisterous and may not be properly trained. AB talks of Mother and MGM as a shared placement. The placement has been tested by daily visits – “we would now have to have someone else moving in”. MGM has a blind spot when it comes to Mother. The Guardian cannot understand why Mother would not want to evidence it if she isn’t using cocaine. HST would indicate the level of risk. The Guardian told the court about AB’s wishes and feelings. He really misses his siblings. He may feel different if in long-term foster care. AB has suffered significant harm throughout his minority and needs better than good enough parenting. The Guardian complimented the recent good work of the social worker.

Ms C was very quietly spoken and seemed to lack an understanding of some of the aspects of her work and her role. She struggled to explain the change of care plan or how it was arrived at. Ms C’s evidence gained in composure and clarity during Mr Littlewood’s cross-examination. Despite her acceptance of some of the shortcomings in her evidence, the totality of her evidence is not so deficient so that it cannot be relied upon. I accept the underlying analysis of risk given in Ms C’s evidence, as expanded upon in oral evidence.

MGM’s evidence was confidently given but riven with contradiction and misdirection. She repeatedly contradicted her own written and oral evidence (some given only moments earlier) and denied facts that were plain. She was unclear on what she was accepting, if anything, in her final statement. She blamed the LA for AB’s comments about contact with Mother. I did not find much of her factual evidence to be credible. I did find her to be candid when discussing Mother’s birth, childhood and how the family are emotional people.

I found the Guardian to be a fair, balanced, clear and compelling witness. I have no hesitation in accepting that she would have wished to have been able to make a different recommendation. I accept the Guardian’s evidence as a whole.

I heard helpful submissions from counsel. Can I thank them for the measured way in which they have conducted this case in difficult circumstances and the assistance that they have given the court.

I begin my analysis with a cross-referenced chronology:

There is no dispute in respect of threshold. I have a final document at page A136 and I am satisfied that is a proper basis for threshold to be found factually and as required by s31.

In submissions, Ms Rasul invites me to consider finding that AB has suffered significant emotional harm in the care of MGM. That is not pleaded in threshold but was put to MGM in oral evidence. I must be careful where I am asked to consider findings beyond a pleaded case.

In my judgment, the Guardian was right to criticise the LA in her first report, most pointedly at page E199. It shows that the Guardian has approached this case with an open mind. Ms Cooke also takes considerable issue with the LA’s thought process, apparent contradiction between position and evidence, and their inaction in returning to court. Again, such criticism has a firm basis.

I have struggled to follow some of the LA’s thought process over the duration of these lengthy proceedings and can well understand why an observer might consider there to have been mixed messages to the family. The LA has filed final evidence on four occasions advocating AB remaining with MGM. They did so with the knowledge of contact with Mother taking place. The written agreements do not entirely tally with each other, and the support contained within the various support plans is minimal, suggesting little support is actually required. I understand and accept Ms C’s evidence that she wanted to allow Mother and MGM time to ‘own up’ (my words) and to work with the family. Beyond a confidentiality issue with the creator of the video and photo, I am still not entirely clear why the LA did not confront MGM with the photo and video evidence. Ms C told MGM she had evidence, and it was not unreasonable for MGM to ask to see it. If consent was an issue, there are other ways to obtain first-hand evidence. In any event, sources of reports are named within Ms C’s statements.

It is correct to say that the written agreements signed by Mother and MGM in May 2023 are not entirely consistent with each other, but it is plain from the first paragraph in Mother’s agreement that she is not to go to “the placement of AB’s carer” [F216]. That can only mean to MGM’s home, as AB was there throughout. There is no ambiguity whatsoever in that provision. Whether paragraph 17 adds anything is questionable, but it is completely clear. MGM’s agreement does not begin with such a clear statement, but paragraphs 19-20 are consistent with Mother’s agreement. Paragraph 20 is a clear prohibition on unsupervised contact. It does permit supervised contact outside of the Manor Centre, but this will “only take place after it has been agreed with the social worker” [F236].

In terms of the agreements, MGM was open in her unhappiness about signing them. She has, fairly, been left with copies of the agreement and allowed time to take advice. She has been represented throughout. MGM has long disliked and/or refused to sign written agreements. The chronologies show that, such as on 24 September 2024. It took until 1 November 2024 for her to sign it. MGM told the court that she had asked for changes to be made. Her evidence hinted at there being a further written agreement. I accept that MGM said that the September agreement was not working but there is no evidence of any changes actually being made to the agreement that remained in force.

I do not find that the written agreements were in any way unclear to MGM or Mother. Their own actions and their reporting, particularly the MGM, make that clear. I am also satisfied that MGM has long been aware of the prohibition on unsupervised contact. She told [schoolteacher] that in July 2024. Her own statements record that understanding and it has featured throughout the written agreements.

Ms Rasul referred to MGM’s “day dot attitude” in her submissions. MGM’s approach to the case and contact with Mother in particular is a central aspect to the case. Ms C said that the LA has tried for years to work with MGM and to get her to work with services. There is no dispute that MGM has not engaged with the work she herself promised to do. Her promising to do so is a sign that she either recognises the need for work or is approaching work as a tick-box exercise. Her oral evidence leans very much towards the latter. There are many references in the chronology to MGM refusing to engage with work, yet she told Ms Norris of the work that had been lined up to begin imminently.

Mr Yeung and Ms Cooke submit that little weight that should be attached to the so-called eye-witness evidence. No statements are produced from any of the purported authors, and none have given evidence. The evidence amounts to multiple sources of hearsay. The school is an independent source of information and one that it is common ground that MGM works well with. The LA’s evidence contains reports of several workers familiar with the parties, making sightings over a lengthy period, although less weight attaches to those. Father’s reporting of his time of returning AB is not challenged and no oral evidence was sought from him.

The contents of the video and photo are not disputed. MGM accepts that they show Mother with AB without either her or MGF in shot. The video is consistent with reports and Mother and AB “cycle” (whether by bicycle or Segway). MGM says that she was present in a nearby aisle in the supermarket and that the plants in the shopping trolley are hers, as the family gardener. There is no evidence to counter that suggestion. She also says that AB was not unsupervised during the video as MGF was there. She accepts that on another occasion there was an incident when AB was unsupervised due to MGF needing to return keys to work when MGM was out. Unfortunately, that tells me that the requirement for supervision was not uppermost in MGF’s mind. AB was left unsupervised by MGM’s own admission when MGF went to work. MGM said he was “packing the house” during the video incident. That also suggests he was somewhat busy rather than supervising.

I must also consider MGM’s responses and her oral evidence in respect of other and better documented sightings.

Where arguments in respect of weight fall down is in respect of AB. The professionals do not believe him to be dishonest and are concerned about him being drawn into a web of lies. AB has been consistent in what he has told professionals about seeing his Mother. He has given small but important detail, about what they did together and when. Mother cooking is consistent with MGM not enjoying cooking. The “spaghetti incident” is one such example. AB has not mentioned Asda. AB is aware of the subterfuge from his comments to social workers. I do not accept MGM’s assertion that he has been entrapped into saying things. That is a deflection of blame and one wholly unsupported by evidence.

I did not find MGM to be a credible witness. Her own reporting to the social worker is significant evidence, as is the reporting of the school, family members and AB himself. It is highly unlikely that all are lying. MGM’s holding up her hands in her final statement was in name only. She did not understand in oral evidence what she was actually accepting. All this is against a background of long-held disenchantment with the agreements, subsequent failed visits and a significant lack of insight into the risk Mother poses.

MGM is undoubtedly a grandmother who is torn between her daughter and her grandson. She gave candid evidence about the difficulties surrounding Mother’s birth and the understandable protective nature she and MGF have of their only child. MGM told social workers of her struggle in choosing between Mother and AB on 12 October 2023, 10 December 2024 and again on 31 December 2024. She told the court the same in her oral evidence. The “pull”, as counsel describe it, and the dependency that is intertwined with it was evident in court from the behaviour of Mother and MGM. Their relationship and the emotional issues connected with it must also be considered from AB’s perspective and any risk of emotional harm that it might lead to. It is not sufficient for MGM to say “we are emotional people”. Emotions are one thing; emotional harm is another.

I must also consider the long-standing background of MGM wanting or supporting, AB’s return to Mother’s care. She has made the same point to several professionals in proceedings and addressed the issue in her oral evidence. Although she conceded that any return to Mother would be under professional guidance, it was plain that she does not think that Mother has much to change before it can happen. That gives an element of motive.

As Mr Littlewood accurately put it, MGM has a large blind spot when it comes to Mother. There is little if any curiosity about HST, for example. MGM has accepted that Mother would engage with HST when she is ready. That is wholeheartedly putting Mother’s needs above those of AB. In her statement at page C252, MGM says in respect of Mother, “I know it would not be safe for AB to be placed in her care or for her to have any unsupervised contact with AB”. If MGM is to care for AB and if Mother’s contact needs to be supervised, MGM does not seem curious as to whether supervision is actually needed. As the Guardian said, a negative HST might mean an undertaking is the extent of the requirement.

I must not use lies as direct proof of “guilt” (Lucas is a criminal case). It can only support other evidence if it is a deliberate untruth and was not told for a reason that does not point to guilt. I do not consider that MGM’s prioritising of Mother over AB is misplaced loyalty. She considers that Mother should have an active role in AB’s life and, by virtue of her own evidence, is a more capable carer that the LA think she is. MGM has given her reasons for acceding to AB’s threats of self-harm. The only explanation is guilt.

I am satisfied that it is more likely than not that the MGM has permitted unsupervised contact. She told Ms A that [C94] and that acceptance does not make sense otherwise. I am satisfied that the totality of the “sightings evidence”, from the school, social workers and AB in particular, make it more likely than not that unsupervised contact has happened. The seriousness of that is greater after receipt of the final written agreement. I agree with the Guardian’s evidence that MGM essentially failed the testing period.

On 11 December 2024, AB used the words “pussy” and “bitch” towards social workers. MGM was noted to call Ms C a bitch. AB’s earlier reports to school and social workers suggest that he is aware of MGM and Mother not being honest with the LA.

I am satisfied that AB has suffered emotional harm in MGM’s care. The social workers and Guardian are both first-hand witnesses and give written and oral evidence about the emotional situation at home and the involvement AB has in adult issues. Their assertions are supported in evidence by independent parties such as the school. MGM does not see herself as a risk to AB and instead deflects from the issue when confronted. AB has seen and heard too much. “He knows everything anyway” is no answer to that.

Any welfare analysis must keep in mind Hedley J’s well-known dicta in Re L. Society must be prepared to accept a diverse standard of parenting and must avoid social engineering. It is not sufficient that there is a better option for a child. What society does not tolerate is harmful parenting – to do so would contradict the ethos of the Children Act 1989. Children should be brought up within their natural family if it is safe to do so. The paramount principle remains the child’s welfare.

This case is unusual in that MGM was the main carer and is essentially the lead respondent. Nevertheless, the same principles apply. A central element of the risk in this case comes from Mother, and then MGM’s understanding, acceptance and insight to that.

Mother’s parenting assessment is not challenged and stands as evidence before the court. The assessment of Mother and the Guardian agree that Mother is often teary, can be hysterical and can sometimes take considerable time to control her emotions. This has also been viewed as a distraction tactic, where Mother seeks the attention to be on her rather than on the wellbeing of her children. She has also been noted to be defensive and would walk off. Mother does not put herself forward to care for AB. That is a child-focused decision and one that is to her credit.

Mother’s HST results show a high level of cocaine usage. Mother has refused to engage with HST since the sole test earlier in proceedings. I do not accept any of the reasons given by MGM on her behalf in oral evidence. The test results we do have are inconsistent with Mother’s stated use. She has not engaged properly with support services. The only inference I can draw properly upon the evidence is that Mother has refused to comply with HST because she is still using cocaine. That if itself is a risk factor.

On 23 April 2023, Ms A filed her first statement. At C3, she notes that MGM was meeting AB’s basic needs and he had improved school attendance. She went on to consider that MGM is not a protective factor and that an ICO would be sought. Following Ms Norris’s first report, the LA’s plan was for an SGO to be made in favour of MGM. Ms A’s fourth statement (26 February 2024) starts with “The Local Authority is concerned that Mother’s unwillingness to accept support is a mirror of MGM’s behaviour, and consequently AB will continue to be exposed to the emotional dysregulation from both his mother and maternal grandmother”. I do not understand the reference at C151 to the LA accepting there is nothing that prevents Mother from going to the home. That statement is dated 26 February 2024, yet the Mother’s written agreement dated 15 May 2023 does contain such a provision.

By the time of Ms A’s later statements, the LA is not content with Ms Norris’s reports. She did not communicate with other professionals or the school to promote a balanced analysis. They were also concerned that her assessment was based upon incorrect information provided by MGM.

Ms C’s first substantive statement is dated 25 September 2024. It is accepted that it was filed a day after the last written agreement and after Ms C had received the photograph and video. She says (with my emphasis added):

“In respect of AB, the Local Authority is also of the view that there should be no change to the care plan 9^th April 2024 which recommends a Child Arrangements Order and 12-month Supervision Order. The Local Authority continues to hold some areas of concern for AB in the care of his maternal grandmother and the placement is not without risk, however the Local Authority has considered on balance, the risk of emotional harm for AB at this stage to be removed from his grandmother’s care. With committed engagement from MGM, the Local Authority considers that these risks can be managed with a support plan”.

It is clear from the following paragraphs that the LA intended to address the concerns under a robust support plan and that further exploration was required. It is also clear that Ms C was well aware of the numerous alleged sightings of Mother and AB. She is also able to name the source of the report(s).

The LA then changed their care plan. It is notable that the core group meeting took place on 26 September 2024, only one day after evidence was filed and two days after the written agreement was sent. AB’s account to Ms C contradicts that of MGM. She concluded that “the Local Authority views that the concerns are unable to be managed without compliance and honesty from Mrs Smith and therefore the risk of harm is increased to AB at this time”.

Ms C’s December statement sets out her table of realistic options. Her January statement updates the court of events since AB’s removal.

Ms C told Ms Cooke that the risk from Mother remained the same. The two are not inconsistent as the static nature of the risk is not the same as the chance of the behaviour itself occurring. I accept Ms Cooke’s submission that the October statement does not contain an analysis of the balance of harm. The statement must be read in light of the previous and subsequent statements. There is little point in repeating the ‘on balance’ static risk if the balance tips the other way due to ongoing non-compliance. Reading the totality of the evidence, the LA has balanced the risk of emotional harm to AB from separation against the risk of harm from Mother and MGM. The balance fell in favour of remaining with MGM until her dishonesty and non-compliance were such that it tipped the other way.

MGM prays in aid the positive reports of Sarah Norris and is entitled to do so. I do not consider that as much weight can be placed upon the earlier reports of Ms Norris for the reasons that the LA identified. She did not communicate with the other professionals to ensure that her report was based upon an accurate factual matrix. She appears to rely heavily upon self-reporting from MGM. It is clear that MGM either said she was engaging with support when she either was not doing so, or promised to do so and then did not. That is apparent from Ms Norris’s final addendum. The same principle applies to unsupervised contact. Once fully appraised, Ms Norris makes clear just how significantly that would change things in her final addendum. Her disappointment in MGM is evident.

AB is 12 years of age. Considerable weight must be placed upon his ascertainable wishes and feelings in light of his age and understanding. That is not just what he wants. AB is clear that he wants to remain with family. It is interesting to note that he appears to see Mother and MGM as a package. His third option would be to remain with his current carers. I am satisfied that AB does wish to return to MGM’s care and sees Mother as an integral part of that. He is plainly enjoying time with his father. He is not against remaining where he is as a third choice. He told Ms C that he gets on well with the foster family.

AB is vulnerable by nature of the care that he has received and the emotional harm that he has been exposed to. He needs to be with carers who can safely and consistently meet all of his needs. AB’s attendance is not yet at an acceptable level, but it improved enormously in MGM’s care. She has also engaged with the school and works well with them. She has promoted AB’s education, such that he has settled well in secondary school Whatever level of care MGM has provided to AB, at key dates it must have been considered to have been, and likely to remain, good enough for the LA to recommend AB’s continued placement in her care. That remained the LA’s position on 25 September 2024, despite all they knew and despite the latest written agreement being drafted on 24 September 2024, a matter of hours before.

AB lived with MGM for just over two years before his removal by this court in December. Any change of circumstances, and indeed the continuation of his current circumstances, are likely to cause emotional upset. AB wants to go home. There is a clear and obvious risk of emotional to AB due to there being no long-term placement available. That builds in uncertainty for AB. There is also a risk that he will consider himself different to his siblings if he is the only one not living with family. I accept that with the difficulties between the families it is likely that contact arrangements may improve if the LA has parental responsibility for AB.

Threshold is met. I have also found that AB has suffered emotional harm in the care of MGM. He is at further risk because MGM plainly thinks that Mother can care or is very close to being able to care for AB. There is also risk from MGM allowing contact (including unsupervised) because AB threatens to harm himself. MGM acknowledged that such contact is not safe for AB. I agree.

At C149, Ms A states

“The Local Authority is further concerned that MGM lacks insight into the impact of Mother’s substance misuse, the risky males Mother has associated with and their impact on the children, non-engagement with support and overall functioning upon her children. This combined with MGM’s lack of openness as to how much time AB does spend with Mother, leads the Local Authority to question if MGM can truly prioritise AB over Mother in order to safeguard him as a vulnerable child rather than her daughter, and seek the necessary support for AB from professionals in times of need”.

“MGM covers up for her daughter, while not addressing the issues. Several conversations have taken place with MGM in regard to this issue and the potential long-term impact on Mother’s ability to make positive changes and not continue to repeat the same pattern of behaviour. It has also been discussed with MGM the potential impact on AB, as he continues to see the unregulated and lack of accountability in behavioural patterns of the adults around him. This forms a template of behaviour that could potentially lead to intergenerational cycle trauma, dysregulated behaviour and negative outcomes”.

Inherently linked with harm is the issue of capability. I accept the LA and Guardian’s evidence about MGM’s insight, honesty and deflection. Her own actions support their contentions. MGM has made many promises but not engaged with work. She continues to blame others, including perhaps indirectly, AB himself. MGM told the court that she is frightened of losing the Mother. Without work, and without at least a basic measure of acceptance, there is little if any prospect of change. MGM has herself demonstrated that she is highly unlikely to undertake work. Her oral evidence made clear that she would do so as a “tick-box” exercise. When the court is not involved, promises are not kept and there is non-compliance.

That is not to say that there are not positives and protective factors. There are several important factors. I do not accept that the LA has failed to balance these. If anything, they gave them too much weight until the very end. Sadly, those positive factors do not outweigh the risk of future harm to AB.

Turning to the powers of the court, I can make a care order, child arrangements order, special guardianship order, supervision order or no order.

Long-term foster care has the advantages of providing a safe place for a child to live and for his needs to be met by professional carers. But it is not family, and it is not permanent. Placements can and do break down for all sorts of reasons. A looked after child is subject to state involvement for their minority. That means being treated differently to their peers. Given AB’s age and experiences, the risk of that happen increases the risk of emotional harm to him. That is even greater in this case due to the lack of long-term placement.

AB’s siblings are relevant in this case. He has close relationships with them, and they are each in family placements. Although there is no sign of him asking yet, he may ask why he cannot return home and is therefore being treated differently.

If AB was to return to MGM, he would have the benefit of living with family. He would be in his first choice of placement and would be able to resume the activities he enjoys with MGF. He would be able to have sibling contact, and his physical needs are likely to be met. There is obvious benefit to each of these factors.

However, placement with MGM would not be the ‘shared care’ that AB seems to envisage and would be subject to stringent controls regarding Mother’s contact. Therein lies the problem. The family has had a testing out period and it has not been successful. The court cannot have any confidence that contact will be policed properly. MGM wants Mother back in the house and her blind spot prevents her from prioritising AB. She is, by her own admission, torn between Mother and AB. Strict supervision is plainly necessary given Mother’s stance on HST. Even then, it is unlikely that MGM herself would be able to spot of Mother was under the influence. Without the work that MGM has promised to do and not done, it is likely that AB will again have cause to threaten self-harm to secure time with his mother. That is harmful to him. I am not satisfied that MGM can provide the good enough care that AB requires.

I am satisfied that there is no practical way of the LA providing the support needed for AB to return to MGM. She and Mother have been dishonest about contact. Mother continues to refuse HST and MGM will not do any work. The practical consequences of those positions are already evident. I accept the Guardian’s submission that someone would have to move into the property for it to work. Plainly that is not realistic or possible. No other measure would suffice.

I do not consider that a supervision order would meet AB’s best interests or remedy the issues in this case. I do not consider that a “care order at home” would do so either. It would be a stronger order in the sense of the LA having PR, but it would also rely upon the parties working openly and honestly with the LA and work being undertaken. The risks that justify the making of a care order cannot be managed in the home.

I am satisfied that the balance of harm and AB’s best interests fall in favour of him remaining in foster care, even with the uncertainties of placement. To not make a care order would essentially allow the position as up to 11 December 2024 to resume. I am satisfied that a care order is both necessary and proportionate. I have given full consideration to the Article 8 rights of both AB and the adult parties.

I will therefore grant a care order for AB. I shall approve the amended care plan for contact as set out at the start of the hearing. I also endorse the additional points made by the Guardian in her oral evidence. Mothers contact should be up to three hours and the LA should carefully consider progressing contact and sibling contact in the manner described by the Guardian.

I agree with the Guardian in terms of placement. AB’s school has been a stable factor in his life and remaining in this local area is important to him. The LA should not just accept the first placement that becomes available. AB should be able to remain in the local area and in his current school.

That concludes my judgment.

At the handing down of this judgment on 15 January, I was told that a long-term placement has been found for AB that is local and will allow him to remain at the same school.