Z Local Authority v PQ & Ors

The child at the centre of this case is TU, a boy, born in 2024 and so now 15 months old. The main application is brought by the Z Local Authority, represented by Laura Harrington of Counsel. Their application is dated 26 June 2024 and is for a Care Order and an Interim Care Order. TU’s mother is PQ and she has been represented by Katie Williams-Howes of counsel. TU’s father is RS and he has been represented by Piers Wauchope of Counsel. The Children’s Guardian in this case is Po-Yin Wan and TU has been represented through her by Julian Hayes, solicitor.

The mother had come to the attention of the Local Authority prior to TU’s birth by virtue of a number of police call-outs and referrals relating to violent incidents and possible domestic abuse including non-fatal strangulation at the mother’s home in 2023 and 2024. The father now accepts that he had been violent towards the mother at that time, although he denied it then. He has a history of violent offences including battery in 2015, criminal damage in 2018 and damaging property in 2023. He also has a conviction from 2023 for possessing both class A and class B drugs. In each case he pleaded guilty. When TU was born the Local Authority say that the father refused to allow him to receive the standard Vitamin K injection. They also say that at that time the mother was saying that the father had never hit her or laid a finger on her, and saying she just wanted to be left alone and did not want to work with professionals. It was against this background that the Local Authority issued their application.

On 28 June 2024 (when TU was 4 days old) the Court made an Interim Care Order and the TU was placed in a mother and baby residential placement called X Residential Unit. Their assessment report, delivered on 28 November 2024 was negative, but the placement did not end. Both parents were engaged in a DVACT assessment throughout December 2024. That assessment concluded that the father presented as a high risk of severe physical harm to the mother and TU, and a high risk of emotional and psychological harm to them both if no risk management plan was in place. The mother was assessed as extremely vulnerable.

Following the receipt of that report, and further work done by the mother, X Residential Unit produced an addendum report on 27 February 2025 which found that the mother had made progress, and recommended that the mother undertake a community-based assessment, provided the mother agreed not to return to the Z Local Authority. On 23 April 2025 the mother and TU moved to a mother and baby foster placement for further assessment and they have been there since. The mother was assessed in that placement by an ISW Julia Hughes. Her report is dated 17 July 2025. She noted that the mother had undergone a programme of bespoke work with DVACT-PAI which was delivered on a 1:1 basis, and which concluded that the mother had made progress and shown willingness to work with the Local Authority. The DVACT-PAI final report recommended that TU live with his mother in an address unknown to the father. Ms Hughes had that report available to her when she finalised her report. Ms Hughes was of the view that the mother appeared to have addressed many of the Local Authority’s concerns, that she had gained insight into the impact of domestic violence, and that her parenting of TU was to a very good standard. She recommended that the mother should be allowed to care for TU in Z Local Authority provided it was not at her previous address which was known to the father.

In addition to the application for a Care and Placement order I am asked to consider also the following applications:

The Local Authority support TU remaining in his mother’s care. Instead of a Care Order they now seek a 12-month Supervision Order, on the basis that the mother has signed a written agreement not to return to her previous address which is known to the father. All parties now support that position.

All parties support the making of a Lives With order for the mother.

All parties support the making of a non-molestation order to protect the mother and TU, except for the father who does not oppose it. There is some debate as to the appropriate length of the order.

No party opposes the Declaration of Parentage being made.

The father, towards the middle of the hearing, said he no longer wished to pursue the application for parental responsibility. I asked him in oral evidence why he had changed his mind on that, and he said he did not want to stress or cause unnecessary worry to his son’s mum when she could be using her energies just to look after him. It is right to say that no party had supported the making of the parental responsibility order and it appears that the father had reflected on that. I accept his evidence on the point, and commend him for not pursuing the application, and I hereby give him leave to withdraw it.

I have conducted a four-day final hearing on this matter. The hearing was held in person, and screens and separate waiting rooms were provided for the mother throughout. The father was respectful of those arrangements and did not seek to upset them, or the mother. I was provided with a trial bundle, and in addition I had the Guardian’s final analysis and a number of other documents including the written agreements, an updated Supervision Order support plan and statements from the maternal aunt and the maternal grandmother. I heard oral evidence from the allocated social worker, Manuela Clement, and brief evidence from both parents, albeit that no party wished to cross examine them as the main issues had all been resolved outside court. Nevertheless I wished to hear from them, and I did so in order to form my own view of their insight, commitment and intentions. I also heard oral evidence from the Guardian, and I heard submissions from all the parties. I am giving this judgment on the fourth day of the hearing.

A court cannot make a public law order unless the circumstances at the relevant date are as set out in s31(2) Children Act 1989. If they are then the threshold for making public law orders is crossed.

In any decision that I make involving the upbringing of a child, their welfare must bemy paramount consideration, and I must take into account all of the relevant circumstances in the case, in particular the welfare checklist at s.1(3) Children Act 1989.

In considering whether to make a final public law order I must undertake a global holistic assessment of all the realistic options as set out in Re B-S (Children) (Adoption Order: Leave to Oppose) [2013] EWCA Civ 1146.

Any order I make must be necessary and proportionate to the risks, particularly where there is any interference with Article 6 or Article 8 of the ECHR as set out in Schedule 1 of the Human Rights Act 1998

Finally I must take note of the No Order principle, namely that when considering whether or not to make orders under the Children Act 1989 I must not make the order unless I consider that doing so would be better for the child than making no order at all (Children Act 1989 s 1(5)).

I begin then by considering threshold. On the first day of the hearing the father made substantial concessions which enabled an agreed threshold to be drawn up. Those concessions were in stark contrast to his denials in his response to threshold and his first statement. In the agreed document the father now accepts that he ripped the door of the frame during an argument with the mother and kicked a hole in the wall, that on another occasion he put one arm round her neck and squeezed her neck with his forearm for about 5 seconds before relaxing his arm, that he has sent her threatening text messages and that he was controlling and coercive in the relationship. He accepts that the relationship featured domestic abuse and violence. These are major concessions.

I asked him what had enabled him now to admit what he had done when he had not felt able to admit it before. He said that he was now thinking about his son, looking at the bigger picture and thinking about the greater good. He said that he hoped it would speed up the time it would take for him to see his son, and also said that having a judge involved in the process gave him confidence that the Local Authority would have to hold up their side of the bargain.

Having heard the father’s evidence on this point, I accept his change of position and accept the concessions and admissions he has made. The agreed threshold document also deals with the mother’s historic denials of the domestic violence, the parents’ secret communication with each other during the first assessment, the father’s drug use and criminal record, and the father’s mental health and difficulties with interpersonal functioning. I am satisfied that the threshold as set out in s31(2) of the Children Act 1989 is crossed on the basis of that document. I turn then to the welfare checklist.

TU is 15 months old. He has always lived with his mother and she has provided good care for him. He is too young to express his wishes and feelings but it is, in my view, safe to assume that he would wish to remain with the person who has provided him with good primary care all his life. That is an assumption supported by the Guardian on the basis of her observations of the mother with TU.

TU has all the usual needs of a 15 month old child. He is dependent on his carers for everything, including emotional warmth, safety, consistency and stimulation. He does not have any special needs. He needs to have a good, stable and warm relationship with both parents if it is safe for him to do so.

The change which is proposed is for him to move in the first instance to a family placement, known to the court but confidential from the father, while the mother bids on properties in Z Local Authority, and then to move with his mother into separate accommodation once she has been awarded a property she has bid on and feels is suitable. TU will therefore notice some changes in his environment. He may miss the foster carer (although the mother says his relationship with the foster carer is not great). However it seems likely to me that he will not be unsettled or distressed by these moves provided his mother remains with him as his primary carer, which is precisely what is planned.

It is relevant that he has been safely in his mother’s care from birth. He has not had to transfer any attachments from carer to carer, and the concerns about his mother were not to do with her care of him, but were to do with her ability to stay separate from the father and to protect herself and TU from domestically abusive situations. He has thus benefitted from consistent good quality care from a birth parent, and that will stand him in good stead as he grows older, and will give him a stability and a resilience.

TU is not at risk of harm providing his location remains unknown to the father and providing the father makes no attempt to contact the mother. The only risk of harm would arise if the father found out where TU was living, and made efforts to see him or to contact the mother outside the boundaries proposed by the Local Authority. If that were to happen there is a risk of TU witnessing violence or being caught up in it, and a risk that if the mother were to be intimidated or coerced by the father once more. If that were to have an impact on her mood, or her mental health, it is likely there would be a knock-on effect on her care of TU. However the parents both say they have not seen each other since the court hearing in October 2024 and there is no evidence to contradict that. They both say they have moved on and neither wants to see the other. The evidence appears to support that. Those are protective factors. Additionally the father has admitted his wrongdoing and has signed up to a written agreement in which he agrees to be referred through the GP for therapy. He is already doing counselling, and he has agreed to attend a perpetrator’s course which includes intensive 1:1 work. If he sees these interventions through, all of them will also reduce the risk of harm to TU.

Both parents have been assessed within these proceedings. The father’s initial parenting assessment by Alexandra Joy, ISW, is dated 11 December 2024. Ms Joy noted that the supervised contact which the father was having with TU at that time was generally positive, but she was concerned about the father’s ability to safeguard TU from harm, specifically in respect of ensuring he is not exposed to domestic abuse or aggressive and violent adult behaviours. She was also concerned about the father’s drug use. At that time he was still denying being the perpetrator of any domestic abuse. She did not recommend that he be a full time carer for TU.

On 6 January 2025 the DVACT-PAI assessment of both parents was filed. It concluded that the father had multiple developmental and static risk indicators which suggested that domestic abuse was likely to be an ongoing feature in his relationships. Substantial changes and long-term intervention were needed before the father could safely parent without supervision. It further concluded that he presented a high risk of severe physical harm to both the mother and TU, and a high risk of severe emotional and psychological harm to them if no risk management features were in place.

On 8 March 2025 the ISW Ms Joy filed an addendum report, having seen the DVACT-PAI assessment. In her addendum she supported the proposal for contact between TU and the father to be suspended until the father had engaged in the recommended support and intervention.

On 23 June 2025 Dr Papatraian, who is a consultant forensic psychologist, filed her report on the father. She said the father was likely experiencing symptoms consistent with an anxiety disorder with depressive symptoms. Trauma-related difficulties were present but the father did not meet the full diagnostic criteria for PTSD. Test scores suggested maladaptive personality features and coping styles but there was no diagnosis of personality disorder or severe or enduring mental illness. His presentation demonstrated features of mood instability, emotional sensitivity and possible unresolved trauma. She said that given the information available, unsupervised contact with TU would not be safe at this time and that supervised contact, under strict conditions, remained the only manageable option pending meaningful behavioural change. In order to facilitate that meaningful behavioural change, Dr Papatraian made extensive recommendations about the work the father needed to do, including trauma-based therapy, personality-focussed therapy, a domestic abuse perpetrator programme, substance misuse support and child-focussed parenting work. All of those recommendations have now been accepted by the father and form part of the working together agreement which he has signed. That is very positive.

The father has returned a number of hair strand and other tests which are positive for cocaine and cannabis. The most recent is positive for cannabis but not cocaine. The sample was taken on 6 August 2025, but because it was axillary hair the positive result could relate to any time in the previous 9 months.

In view of these assessments, and in view of his admissions in relation to Threshold, the father has very sensibly not put himself forward to care for TU. He accepts now that he will need to seek treatment and therapy and begin domestic abuse perpetrator work before even supervised contact can commence. Much of this stance is new, and has evolved during this hearing. It was during this hearing that the written agreement dealing with these matters was drafted and signed. It is to be hoped that it represents the beginning of insight on the part of the father and the start of the path out of his difficulties.

Turning then to the mother, she has been extensively assessed in these proceedings. The first report of X Residential Unit dated 28 November 2024 was originally tentatively positive, saying “from the outset it was evident that PQ had the capacity to meet TU’s basic care needs” consistently, and that she was affectionate, soft and gentle, taking him to play groups and encouraging speech, play, movement and socialisation. They were however concerned that she minimised the domestic abuse she had suffered from the father. Then at the hearing on 17 October 2024 the father revealed that, against the safety plan, he had had ongoing communication with the mother throughout her assessment at X Residential Unit. The mother later admitted the same. The father said she had asked him not tell anyone he had her new phone number, and that he had had video calls with TU and the mother had sent him photos of the child. Following these disclosures, X Residential Unit changed their recommendation to a negative recommendation on the basis that the mother had not been transparent in the work she had been doing with them on her relationship with the father.

Despite the negative assessment the mother was permitted to remain in X Residential Unit while she undertook the DVACT-PAI assessment. The assessment found that she was substantially vulnerable to domestic violence perpetrated by RS and any future partners, and that meant that if TU lived with his mother there was a substantial risk that he would continue being exposed to domestic violence, including a substantial risk of being caught up in reckless violent acts if no risk management measures were in place. It was recommended that she avoid all contact with the father, that she should have the support of an Independent Domestic Violence Advocate, that she have independent psychological intervention aimed at supporting her to build trusting, supportive relationships, and that she attend a domestic violence awareness programme.

On 27 February 2025 X Residential Unit filed an updating report. In it they acknowledged the domestic abuse work which the mother had already done with them, and the engagement which she had had with the in-house psychologist, and the good care which she continued to give to TU. In recognition of these factors, they recommended a period of continued community assessment, but said they could only recommend that TU remain in the full care of his mother if she would agree to move to another borough. That was because of the risk of relapse into her former decision-making processes and behaviours if she came into contact with the father again.

She moved to the mother and baby foster placement in April 2025, and the next assessment of her was the community-based parenting assessment of ISW Julia Hughes. She said this:

“PQ engaged well in the parenting assessment of her, although appeared exasperated by the idea of a further assessment. I consider that her parenting of her son is of a very good standard. She has a very warm and loving relationship with him. She is very focussed on ensuring that his needs are met and she engages him in a very warm and loving, child focussed way. She appears to have addressed many of the concerns of the Local Authority and has gained insight into the impact of domestic violence on herself and on her son, her newly developed insight appears to be at it’s very early stages. TU is always clean, well fed and beautifully dressed. He is given a good/healthy diet, which PQ prepare from scratch. PQ is very confident in her parenting ability and takes pride in how TU presents and in his physical development, including phoning her father in excitement at any changes that he has made. PQ is keen to ensure that TU develops educationally and encourages this by reading him books, ensuring that his screen time is limited and is ambitious for his future. The feedback from her foster carer is also very positive.”

She also set out very starkly the issue in relation to the mother staying in Z Local Authority. She noted that the mother had been homeless for a number of years which led to depression and attempting suicide. She said the mother was anxious about giving up her property in Z Local Authority, which could have the result of a timescale of 5 years before she was allocated a property in another borough. In Z Local Authority she had a good chance of being offered a property quite soon. She said there was therefore a balance to be made as to whether she should be expected to move out of Z Local Authority and face a decline in her mental health which would be likely to have an impact on her care of TU, but where she would be deemed safe from the father. She said a move out of Z Local Authority would be very difficult to maintain and would mean that the mother could not visit her family members and support network and would therefore isolate her, and that appeared harsh given that she was the victim and not the aggressor. Overall Ms Hughes recommended that the mother should be permitted to care for TU while staying in Z Local Authority, but not at her previous address which is known to the father/ She said there would also need to be a professionally-led safety plan, in particular around any face-to-face contact which the father may have with TU. She said there would need to be a working together agreement and an injunction with powers of arrest to support the plan.

None of the assessment evidence in this case has been challenged. I have read the reports. They form a coherent narrative and a cohesive whole, they appear to be diligently prepared and thoughtfully written. I accept the evidence, and accept that the mother is able to offer a good standard of care to TU, and that, with safeguards in place, she would be able to do so in Z Local Authority.

In terms of TU’s placement, there is only one realistic option, and it is a good one. He is placed with his mother, and it is proposed that he stay there. The great benefit of that placement is that he is with a natural parent, and the best person to bring up a child is the parent. Other benefits are that he has been with her all his life so there will be continuity of care, that she provides him with parenting to a good standard, not just in relation to his basic needs but also his needs for affection, warmth, stimulation, development, movement, consistency and social interaction. She is open to working with professionals. By her own account her relationship with the Local Authority is “improving”. She had found it hard to trust social workers to begin with, but that is not unusual where there is possibility that they may try to remove a person’s child. Now that they are supportive of TU staying with his mother, she finds it easier to trust them, and that is understandable. It is also a positive feature of the proposed placement. Further strengths are that the mother has had no contact with the father since October last year (that is 11 months ago), that she has done the domestic abuse work which was recommended and has an increased understanding of domestic abuse.

The risks of the placement relate to the father. He has come a long way during this hearing and I wish to give him credit for that. But it is early days. Time will tell whether he implements all his good intentions. If he does not, there is a risk he will fall back into his old ways, which included coercive controlling behaviour. There is a risk he will try to find the mother and TU, and if he does, there is a risk to them of physical and emotional harm as set out in the DVACT-PAI report.

There are a number of protective measures which could be put in place to reduce that risk. There can be a tight and supportive professional framework around the mother under the Supervision Order, if I make one. There could be injunctive orders which the father says he will submit to. The mother says she will be amongst her support network because she will be in Z Local Authority and indeed she is going to move to a friends and family placement, as a bridging placement, imminently. There is the written agreement. And I am mindful that there are no reports of abusive behaviour by the father for a considerable number of months now.

No placement is risk-free. On balance, I am satisfied that taking into account all the possible risk-reduction measures and factors, the benefits to TU of remaining with his mother outweigh the risks. It is clearly the best place for him and he is thriving in her care. I turn then to the detail of what those risk-reduction measures need to be.

I am asked to make a Supervision Order for 12 months. I have considered whether a Care Order may be more appropriate, as it would enable the Local Authority effectively to vet the location of the property which the mother will in due course move to with TU and ensure that the mother does not return to her existing property. I am reassured by the mother signing a written agreement to bid on new properties, and by the fact that she has bid on some properties already. When I asked her how she felt about bidding she said “excited”. She appears genuinely motivated to find a property in Z Local Authority and I am not persuaded that the Local Authority need to share parental responsibility to ensure that she does so. Nor is there any other reason for them to share parental responsibility given the good care the mother is providing. I am satisfied that a Care Order is not necessary.

The question then is whether a Supervision Order is necessary. I am satisfied that it is needed. The Local Authority need to remain involved for a number of reasons. First, the mother still has further work to do to develop her understanding of the risks the father poses. Second, the Local Authority need to be actively engaged in managing the risk the father poses by assisting him with GP referrals and perpetrator programme referrals. Third, the Local Authority will be needed to carry out a risk assessment of the father in the event that he does engage with the work and therapy and in due course requests supervised contact with TU. It is agreed by all (including the father) that a risk assessment would need to take place in order for that step to be taken, and it will need to be the Local Authority who carry that assessment out. Fourth, if supervised contact starts, the Local Authority will need to supervise it professionally to start with, and will need to work with the family to find a family solution for supervising and arranging contact in the longer term. There is no suggestion from anybody that this father should ever be able to contact this mother directly, not even in the distant future. An alternative route of communication via a third party will need to be set up, and the Local Authority will be needed to work with the family to devise that route. For all those reasons I am satisfied that a Supervision Order is both proportionate and necessary, and that an appropriate length is 12 months. That will give time for the father to begin some work, for some change to begin, and, if that happens, for supervised contact to be taken forward. Any shorter timescale would be too short for these long-term issues to be addressed. I therefore make a Supervision Order for 12 months.

The mother seeks a non-molestation order against the father for 12 months. The other parties support the order being made (except the father, who is neutral), but the Local Authority and the Guardian say the order should be indefinite.

In deciding whether to make such an order I must have regard to all the circumstances of the case including the need to secure the health, safety and wellbeing of the applicant and any relevant child. I must also consider whether there is evidence of molestation, whether the applicant or child need protection and if so, whether judicial intervention is required to control the behaviour which is the subject of the complaint. In this case there is clear evidence of molestation in the agreed Threshold document in which the father admits being violent towards the mother, damaging her property and coercively controlling her. What is less clear is whether she now needs protection.

The parties last saw each other in October 2024 at a court hearing, some 11 months ago. Since then the father sent the mother a text message on 1 November 2024 which said “watch how shit your life is gonna be soon as you get out there watch you can be around all the people you want. That boy misses me trust I feel it and you know it. YOU THINK HE AINT HURTING FROM NOT SEEING ME…you sick bitch…I hope you fucking die”. On 10 December 2025 he wrote to the mother in the contact handover book “that milk is not good. Taste it. TASTE IT” which the Local Authority say, and I agree, is aggressive and controlling. He also used the book to tell the mother not to take TU abroad as TU would be traumatised by it, which is further evidence of controlling behaviour. He further used the contact review meeting on 2 January 2025 to criticise the mother’s care of TU further, saying TU had dirty fingernails, his nappies were too small for him and that he was dressed inappropriately for the weather. As I understand it the mother was not present at that meeting but it was a further example of the father seeking to undermine and criticise her.

I accept that these incidents show the father engaging in unacceptable behaviour within the last 12 months, but there is no evidence of such behaviour directly aimed at the mother continuing after January 2025. Given that that is the case, the question must be asked whether there is any behaviour now which gives rise to the need for a non-molestation order. The situation as it is now is that the father has come to court and withdrawn his application for parental responsibility and for supervised contact, has admitted his wrongdoing and agreed to undertake the recommended work and therapy. He has engaged respectfully with the court during this hearing. On the face of it, there is a sea change. It is clear from the threshold document that the mother very much needed to be protected from the father in the past, but it might be said that there is no evidence the mother needs to be protected from him now.

There, however, the evidence of Dr Papatraian who says this:

“Without meaningful engagement in treatment, the current risk factors, particularly poor emotional regulation and problematic interpersonal patterns are likely to persist”.

I remind myself that the father’s poor emotional regulation and problematic interpersonal patterns resulted in an assessment of him being a high risk of severe physical harm to the mother and TU, and a high risk of emotional and psychological harm to them both if no risk management plan was in place. It follows that if he does not meaningfully engage with the treatment, those risks to the mother and TU remain. I am glad that the father has expressed the intention to engage meaningfully with the recommended work. I am however aware that he has no track record of being able to work well with professionals, particularly when he perceives that they disagree with him or challenge him. This work is likely to be challenging. It remains to be seen whether he will be able to do it. In those circumstances, and in the absence of any work having been done so far, I cannot rely on his very recent change, or his good intentions, however sincere they are. I come to the view that there is at present still risk of harm to the mother and TU unless a risk management plan is in place.

I have considered whether measures other than judicial intervention could sufficiently reduce the risk. There is the written agreement, and there is the Supervision Order with all the support which the support plan promises. It seems to me none of that does what a non-molestation order would do, which is to deal with the situation where the father’s good intentions are not fulfilled. Only a non-molestation order will make it clear to him that he must not contact the mother or TU, and that if he does he will be arrested. He does not intend to contact the mother at present. But unless and until he is some way into the recommended work and therapy, there will remain a risk that his poor emotional regulation and problematic interpersonal patterns will re-assert themselves and he will try to get in touch. That could be very damaging for the mother psychologically, and could give rise to direct communication between the parties. I remind myself that that is what happened in the X Residential Unit assessment, and it almost gave rise to TU being removed from his mother’s care.

For all those reasons I come to the view that protection is required, and that the form of protection which is required is a non-molestation order. I therefore make the order in the terms sought with two amendments. The first is the addition of a preamble to say that the order is made on the basis of the agreed threshold document. The second is a re-draft of paragraph 12, which is the paragraph dealing with contact between the parties. The current drafting contains the right idea, but the drafting is a little unclear and I will rephrase it. The point of the paragraph is to prevent the parents from having direct contact but to introduce a mechanism for the father to take forward the issue of contact with TU without breaching the order. It is important to note that the father submits to this order in principle although he has views as to the appropriate length of it. I hope that is a further positive sign of increasing insight on his part.

The non-molestation order will be effective immediately. There are differing views as to how long it should last. The mother asks for it for a year, only. She says she only needs 12 months to acclimatise. In oral evidence she said she did not even mind if it was for less than a year. I gained the impression that the mother did not really understand the reasons for the non-molestation order being necessary, nor the effect of it. I have read in the assessments that she has come a long way in terms of her understanding of domestic abuse but she still has some way to go. Her approach to the non-molestation order seemed to me to exemplify that assessment. She has come far enough to know that applying for a non-molestation order is the right thing to do, but not far enough to understand the risks it will reduce, or what difference it will make. For those reasons I do not give great weight to her view as to the length of it.

The Local Authority say the order should last indefinitely. They say the end of the first year is a vulnerable time for the mother. It is the very moment when the Supervision Order falls away and professional support steps back. They say the risks are at the higher end of the spectrum. The Guardian supports that view. She says that the father may recently have changed his position but there is a very long way to go for him to be able to demonstrate that he has changed his behaviour. She says he will have to show a lot of resilience to be able to work through his issues and that the work will take a long time. His are not problems which can be solved in the short term.

The father, as I have said, submits to the principle of the non-molestation order but his concern is that he needs to have something to work towards; a goal, to motivate him as he goes through the work and therapy which is needed. His ultimate goal is unsupervised contact with TU. He knows that is a long-term goal. His medium-term goal is face-to-face supervised contact with TU. Even that will require hard work and commitment from the father to achieve, but he is determined to do it. He understands that in the short term, he will have indirect contact only until he has demonstrated meaningful commitment to the process and continued change in his behaviour. He understands and accepts that at that stage there will need to be a risk assessment and that the Local Authority will carry that out. He accepts that while that is happening the non-molestation order will not stand in the way of his contact because he will be able to communicate through the Local Authority and, once they withdraw, in the medium term he can communicate through a third party agreed through the Local Authority. What concerns him is the long term. If and when he is able to move to unsupervised contact, he would like to be able to do so, and to make arrangements for it, without fearing that he will breach the non-molestation order. He accepts that the end of the first year is a vulnerable time for the mother, and so would accept a non-molestation order for 2 years, but he asks me not to make it for longer than that, as it will make matters difficult in relation to future contact.

In my view, the work which the father needs to do may well take longer than two years. His difficulties are entrenched and long-standing. He has trauma-related difficulties and maladaptive personality features. These are well-known to difficult to treat and to be slow to change. He will have to contend with NHS waiting lists. It would, in my view, be too risky to remove the injunction after only two years. I do, however, accept that over a longer period the order may not be necessary, and I must make only such orders which are proportionate and necessary. In my view the balance is to be struck by making the order for five years. Five years is long enough to allow the father time to complete all the work recommended, if he is resilient enough to do so. If he does complete the work he might well, by then, be in a position to seek unsupervised contact, and the non-molestation order would no longer be appropriate. If he does not complete the work, the five year period will have given both parties time to move on. The mother will be well and truly consolidated in her life and support network. TU will be at school. There will be, by then, nearly six years distance since she last communicated with the father which is time enough for her to gain perspective and deeper understanding of what happened to her, and the risks that she and TU were at. Her address will remain confidential. Contact either will, or won’t be securely established. In short, the parties will know where they are and working practices will have developed, one way or the other. At that stage it seems to me that the non-molestation order may well not be needed any more. If it is, the mother can apply for an extension.

The mother has applied for a Child Arrangements Order to say that TU lives with her. The mother says that such an order would regularise the position, and would provide an extra layer of security for the mother. The Local Authority support the application saying it would reflect the fact that all are agreed as to where TU should live. They say the order ensures additional security and stability, and that it is needed because of the father’s track record of coercive control. The Guardian also supports the making of the order. She says it settles TU’s living arrangements, and allows for enforcement if such should ever be required. The father is, as I understand it, also supports the application.

I have listened carefully to the arguments in favour of making a Lives With Order, but I have struggled to see why it is necessary. There is no dispute as to where the child lives. An order is not needed to “regularise the position” or to “record an agreement”. In terms of security and stability for the mother, that will be provided by the non-molestation order. The father does not have parental responsibility and cannot, therefore make the mother’s life difficult by, for example refusing to agree to holidays abroad.

Following that logic through, part of the argument for a Lives With Order not being necessary is the protection already provided by the non-molestation order. I have now decided that order will only last for 5 years and will then fall away. At that stage the father may be more of a presence in TU’ss life, and not everything which is agreed now may be agreed at that point. At that stage, for the sake of stability and security to TU a Lives With order may well be necessary. It is open to me to suggest that the mother applies for one then if she needs it, but it does not seem to me to be in TU’s interests to set his mother up with a stressful and time-consuming task if it is reasonably foreseeable that it will be in TU’s interests for the order to be in force at that point. I therefore consider it better for TU that I make a Lives With order now: not because it will add much in the next five years, but because it forms part of a package of orders which is designed to be proportionate, and to provide the right level of security and protection for the foreseeable future. I therefore make the order now.

I turn finally to the Declaration of Parentage application, which is made under s55A of the Family Law Act 1986. I am satisfied that the father is habitually resident in England and Wales and that the court therefore has jurisdiction. I have seen a report from AlphaBiolabs dated 17 July 2024 which is a testing organisation well known to the court. The report contains suitable evidence as to the chain of custody of samples and the identity of the sample donors. The report states that the probability that RS is TU’s father is 99.9999999%. I have no reason to doubt that report. Further, both RS and PQ have been consistent in saying that RS is TU’s father. On the basis of that evidence I find it is more likely than not that he is TU’s father, and I therefore do make the Declaration of Parentage, that RS is the father of TU .

I turn to the issue of contact. No party asks me to make a contact order, but contact has been the focus of some discussion in the court. The agreed position is set out in the written agreement signed by the father, and the written agreement signed by the mother, and in the Supervision Order support plan. Contact will begin with the father sending gifts and cards once a month to TU. I have stressed to him the importance of complying with his, and the fact that the Local Authority will wish to see compliance as evidence of his commitment to TU before they progress to supervised contact. There are now clear steps set out for the father to take in order to start supervised contact and I am satisfied that those steps are necessary and appropriate. The father also accepts them. I therefore approve the Local Authority’s plan for contact and, indeed the remainder of the support plan.

Much has been said at this hearing and in this judgment about the long and challenging road ahead for the father. It will require every last drop of his energy and commitment to TU to make that journey successfully. For TU’s sake, I hope he is committed, and does complete the journey. I remind him of Dr Papatraian’s view of his long-term prospects. She said that if he demonstrates genuine motivation and consistent engagement with the recommended therapeutic work, positive change is possible. Addressing trauma and maladaptive relational patterns could lead to improved emotional stability, enhanced empathy and safer interpersonal functioning. Those are the very things which are needed if the father is to have a meaningful relationship with his son, and he must keep in his mind the psychologist’s opinion, that it is possible for him to get there.