X Borough Council v Child A & Anor

Today at IRH I make Final Orders with regards to 9-year-old Child A, born on the x November 2015, and Child B, born on the x November of 2020, who is 4 years old. Their parents are Father and Mother. The Guardian has this morning described their progress as a “transformation.” I share that view as they have shown resistance, persistence and determination from the outset of their journey through the Family, Drug and Alcohol Court. I am immensely proud of them, and I know that that is a view that the FDAC team, the Guardian, and social workers hold too. They are also living proof of the transformative power of the FDAC model where parents trust in the process, do all that is asked of them, fully engage and invest in their own recovery and change their own lives.

The children were made the subject of an interim care order on the 5 June of 2023 and placed in foster care having been police protected due to very poor conditions in the home where all adults were heavily under influence of substances. The children were present and had significant and longstanding unmet needs.

The Local Authority referred to the Family Drug and Alcohol Court for an Initial Assessment. Over the course of a full day, parents were required to be open and honest about their life experiences and addiction, the Initial Assessment was completed. The recommendation was positive, and Father and Mother signed up to FDAC on the 23 October of 2023.

Despite the clear written agreement parents sign at the outset, I am not sure that they fully knew what to expect. I do know that they thought it would all done and dusted in about six months.

This case has been long running. The reasons for extensions have been carefully considered, and in the main purposeful, necessary and unavoidable. Some sadly could have been avoided.

The families first language is not English and at times, the FDAC team were delayed from making the progress and in delivering work when interpreters did not attend, or when tickets to enable the parents to travel to FDAC were not arranged in good time. This caused considerable delay and placed parents under a significant amount of stress that they both navigated that in a very understated, understanding way. As issues continued this became increasingly difficult and more upsetting. It is a testament to their resolve to achieve change that that did not let this derail their progress.

The journey for each parent has been slow and steady, Father, found it difficult to stop using cannabis, it helped him sleep. It was hard, but he did it.

He was desperate to work; he wanted to provide for his family. He is a proud man, but the nature of his employment means that he works mainly at night. FDAC is demanding, parents need to be awake in the day and to prioritise appointments. Father did that. He put his recovery first.

At one point he had ambitions to compete in a sport. Father put that to one side to ensure that there was nothing that stood in the way of his recovery journey.

Father should be and is very proud of his achievements. He tells me he is happy to see a different man in the mirror. He maintains his ambitions, he is an eternal optimist, and he is immensely kind. I remember quite clearly gently telling him off in a non-lawyer review when despite the couple having no money, he was making small donations of food at the door of the supermarket for those in need.

He is a good husband, a loving father, observations show he is attuned to his children's needs, and still wants to give back to the community, to work closely with drug services for those that are still going through their journey. He thinks he has something that he can bring that will help others. He is entirely right about that. He has committed to do a video for other parents, particularly fathers who are going through FDAC so that they can hear first-hand what can be achieved.

There have been times of challenge, and moments of high pressure, a hair strand test led to a repeat test because there was an indication of amphetamine in Father’s system.

Recovery is rarely a straight line. Hair strand tests are not the only source of information. The Court must consider how parents’ function, how they engage, if they have improved personal relationships, their own functioning, their appearance. Happily, when hair strand testing, as opposed to body hair testing, was conducted, it was clear that abstinence had been achieved. Robust planning and relapse prevention work has continued for both parents to underpin their recovery.

Both parents know that recovery is lifelong. They both know that they must maintain the work that they are doing when the professionals’ step away. They tell me at every opportunity that they love their lives, they love their children, and they do not want anything to change.

I know when they say that they absolutely mean it. I also know that they need to keep on top of their recovery for that to be the constant.

Regarding Mother, at the start of these proceedings, Mother had really very little English, she still has not spoken to me in English very much, but that I will forgive, and I apologise that my ability to speak their language has not progressed at all!

I know for Mother learning English has really transformed how she communicates with the children and with everybody else. I am so pleased to see how her confidence has grown.

Mother at the outset was very quiet. She is now her real, authentic self. She has found her confidence, she has found her voice, her self-esteem and she has worked so hard to show that she is a wonderful mother to all her children. It has been heartwarming in the last non lawyer hearing, to hear so much about their Easter cultural traditions that they have maintained and enjoyed as a family.

Mother's progress has been steady, moving quietly and seamlessly through the process and working really hard.

Mother had a boost in terms of her abstinence because in early 2024 she found out that Baby C was on his way. He is now a toddler, and the progress of the family was such that the local authority was unruffled, they completed their assessments and Baby C went home to parents at birth under a Child in Need Plan where he remains.

Child A and Child B returned home in January of 2025 to join Baby C and parents adjusted to being a family of five. Mother stayed at home whilst Father worked. They parented together but it was generally Mother managing the nights and through normal, but what seemed to be endless childhood illness. Mother has continued to work extremely hard on her recovery journey.

The family wanted a fresh start and moved from where they have always lived to a new Local Authority area. Their search for a family home was not easy with numerous highs and lows that brought with it some delay.

Fast forward, and Father has found work and the social worker, the guardian and the FDAC Team have communicated well and have all been a huge source of support. I am particularly grateful to this Local Authority for ensuring that support with school transport is in place and for the very careful and considered way that the return to the family home for Child A and Child B was managed. The children had formed strong relationships with their foster carers, and in turn the foster carers with them. They had also provided support to the parents. There was a good relationship between all, but Child A was particularly anxious about moving and scared about trusting the change he thought he could see in his parents. Leaving his foster care was a real worry for him and played out in night terrors. The transition home was slowed to accommodate and support these emotions.

The gradual return with support meant that when he went home Child A’s night terrors abated quite quickly, and he is now well settled. I know that that is in part because Mother is a great mum. I know she is a great mum because Child A has told me in a letter, and moreover it is clear from the papers.

I particularly enjoyed being the FDAC judge for Father and Mother because of the optimism they bring to all they do. Mother is a realist. If it has been hard, she tells me. She is open about the more difficult side of parenting and shares it with warmth and humour.

This is a family who do not take what they have for granted, and do not take their recovery for granted. When the Family Drug and Alcohol Court step away, when court proceedings fall away, when the high intensity of those proceedings and the assessment phase is finished, there should be caution, as that is the time when complacency can set in. This court knows from experience that that is the time when even the most robust recovery can flounder.

I would stress too, if there is a wobble, then the way forward is to work with the local authority and be honest. Speak to FDAC. The support is there. The new designated Local Authority understand what the issues are. They have been insightful enough to find a social worker who knows you from previous involvement with your family this provides a good basis for support. Please, never be afraid to say you need help.

I turn to Child A and Child B. Their welfare is my paramount concern. The threshold for making public law orders is crossed. Threshold is the reasons why we are here. It is what was happening at the time when the police protected Child A and Child B.

There was undoubtedly a risk of harm, significant harm, from the parenting that they received, and that was accepted very early on, there was a picture of chronic neglect and parents who could not meet their children's needs, home conditions, drug use, and a concerning picture.

I agree with the Guardian's analysis. The Guardian has travelled the journey with the family, and he assesses risk to the children as low.

The children’s needs are being met, they are well loved. They have a stable home, safety, routine, boundaries, and of course a home free of addiction and all its consequences. They are thriving, they are doing so well. Child A is doing exceptionally well at school. He is clearly a bright boy meeting his milestones and it is perhaps quite rightly raised by the receiving Local Authority “why do we need a 12-month supervision order?” Coming to these proceedings, new, it is an understandable question.

The proceedings have been long, and those that have been involved from the outset report that there should be a 12-month supervision order to support this family and that is the unilateral position of the outgoing Council, from the Guardian and the FDAC team. Parents are neutral and they take the guidance of the court.

To make a Supervision Order, I must be satisfied that it is better for the children. I should interfere as little as possible with the family. A Supervision Order is an interference. It means that the local authority is obliged by order to advise, assist and befriend and parents are obliged to accept the support offered.

I am satisfied it is better for the children that I make supervision orders. That is not challenged.

The newly designated authority accepts that there should be a supervision order. I look at the duration of that and I consider that a supervision order is a substantial step down from the family drug and alcohol court. The last non-lawyer review was two weeks ago. Until then, parents had been meeting me each and every fortnight for the last two years. They have attended key work appointments with their individual keyworkers; appointments around healthy relationships. They have completed numerous courses; they have completed work around parenting and better understanding their children’s therapeutic needs.

There has been psychological intervention, appointments in relation to the children, social worker visits and a guardian. All that falls away, when I make a final order, and the supervision order is to advise, assist and befriend. It is a big step down, and as I have already indicated, it is the time of greatest risk.

It is important that does not happen. FDAC provide a six-month soft exit so there is time to adjust. FDAC is still there to help and support on a reducing scale. Thus, if the soft exit is for six months, and the supervision order is for six months, they are back in that position, where the safety net steps away at the same time. It seems to me that that is a good reason as to why the supervision order needs to be longer. Indeed, it will then cover periods of significant change be it nursey or school with time to settle and imbed and manage the impact of past experiences as well documented in the papers. Therefore, the order that I make will be a 12-month Supervision Order. I indicate this at this stage as before I finally approve the order, I am concerned to ensure that the funding panel have approved funding to enable the children to remain in their present schools until the end of the academic year.

The parents agree to hair strand testing at the three-month mark, and if negative, at the nine-month mark of the supervision order.

If the result, after three months, causes any concern, then the test would be repeated at six months. I am content with that as a way forward. The purpose, of course, is if there is any lapse, to catch it quickly and to help and support the family

I am delighted to give this indication. I would ask please for the order to be drawn and the amended support plan to be appended, and I will approve it at that point in time. If it came to pass that the funding is not approved, then of course I have not finally approved the order, and therefore it would be open for the case to be brought back.