Kent County Council v X & Ors

These proceedings concern three children, A, B and C. The mother is the mother of all three children. The father is the father of B and C. A has a different father. On 27 October 2025, I gave an oral judgment in respect of A and, with the agreement of all parties, made a Child Arrangements Order for A to live with his father, a Parental Responsibility order and a Declaration of Parentage. The Child Arrangements Order provided for A to spend time with the mother.

This judgment is therefore in relation to B, an eight year old girl, and C, a two year old boy.

The local authority has been involved with the family on a number of occasions since 2015. In July 2024, the mother suffered a mental health crisis and the maternal grandmother stayed in the family home to care for the children. The mother was discharged from hospital on 1 August 2024 and remained unstable, the children being police protected on the same day. An Emergency Protection Order was made on 2 August 2024 and these proceedings were issued on 13 August 2024 when the local authority applied for supervision and child arrangements orders.

Interim supervision orders were made in respect of B and C at the first hearing on 20 August 2024, together with a Child Arrangements Order in favour of the maternal grandmother.

At the Case Management Hearing on 13 September 2024 the Court directed a viability assessment in relation to the paternal grandparents, with further assessment if that initial assessment was positive. Permission was given for an expert psychiatric assessment of the mother, drug and alcohol testing of both parents, and parenting assessments.

The local authority applied for an urgent hearing as a result of an incident at contact between the mother, father and A’s father on 19 September 2024, when it is alleged that the mother physically assaulted A’s father and the father became aggressive and threatening to the social worker, all in the presence of A. The incident resulted in the police having to be called. At the subsequent hearing on 8 October 2024 the Court made non-molestation orders against the mother and father in respect of A’s father and the maternal grandmother, to last until the conclusion of these proceedings (the order in respect of the maternal grandmother subsequently being discharged on 4 January 2025, and the order in respect of A’s father against the mother being discharged on 29 July 2025).

On 1 November 2024 the maternal grandmother gave notice that she could no longer care for B and C and gave section 20 consent for their placement with emergency foster carers. The local authority applied for the Court’s approval of a change of care plan, and at a hearing on 18 November 2024 the Court listed a contested interim placement hearing, made time-limited interim care orders in respect of B and C and discharged the Child Arrangements Order in favour of the maternal grandmother.

At the contested hearing on 4 December 2024 the Court confirmed the interim care plan for B and C, both children remaining in foster care, and re-timetabled the proceedings. The proceedings were further re-timetabled subsequently to give time for the local authority to ask questions of the ISW in relation to the positive special guardianship assessment of the paternal grandparents.

In April 2025 the parents fully separated and the mother entered a refuge, and made a number of allegations against the father and the paternal grandparents. As a result, the Guardian applied for an urgent hearing and at a hearing on 11 April 2025 the Court gave directions for a further IRH and this final hearing; directed disclosure of a redacted version of the screenshots and messages shared by the mother with the Guardian and local authority; and statements in relation to the mother’s allegations; further drug and alcohol testing, and re-timetabled final evidence.

A number of further applications came before the Court on 29 July 2025 at the Issues Resolution Hearing. The Court dismissed the mother’s application for a reverse residential assessment. The Court directed responses to final threshold and to any schedule of allegations (that schedule being limited to 6 allegations) from the parents, and a contact plan in relation to the paternal grandparents’ transition time with B and C.

On 5 August 2025 the mother applied for an addendum psychiatric assessment and an order providing for this was approved on 19 August 2025.

The proceedings came before me for a pre-trial review on 14 October 2025, when the issues for the final hearing were identified, and my directions included a short statement from the father setting out his contact proposals and an updated supervision order support plan addressing specifically how the father’s contact could take place. The father’s application for a Contact Order was issued on 23 October 2025.

At the pre-trial review, it was anticipated that this hearing would deal with fact-finding, largely in relation to domestic abuse between the parties. However, it has proved possible to reach near agreement regarding the threshold document.

When the proceedings commenced, the local authority’s plan was for B and C to live with their maternal grandmother. This changed in November 2024 when the maternal grandmother could not continue to care for them to a plan of interim foster care, and then in July 2025 following the positive assessment of the paternal grandparents to a plan for B and C to live with them under special guardianship orders. Following the addendum report of the psychiatric expert, the plan changed again in September 2025 to reunification of both children with their mother. That plan is supported by a transition plan dated 14 October 2025, which provides for the children to be fully in their mother’s care by 21 November 2025.

At the hearing on 14 October 2025 the paternal grandmother confirmed that she did not contest the care plans for B and C, and the father confirmed that he was not seeking to care for them, but does seek unsupervised contact.

In her final analysis, the Guardian supported the return of B and C to their mother’s care, at the same time fully understanding that this comes with risks and vulnerabilities. She described the mother as having worked incredibly hard and engaged well with services to address the concerns that were identified in the parenting assessments, but said that this would be a long therapeutic process, which is likely to see periods of instability.

The disputed issue to be resolved at this hearing was to be the arrangement for the time that B and C spend with their father. The father sought a short transition to unsupervised time. That was opposed by the other parties. The local authority proposed a Child Arrangements Order providing that there would be no contact, save as agreed by the local authority.

During the course of the first day of the hearing, the local authority agreed that it would provide an updated supervision order support plan setting out more fully its proposals for contact. That support plan was amended and circulated on the second day of the hearing. It set out two options, but by the time the hearing resumed the refuge had confirmed to the social worker that option two was not available, since if the location of the refuge was disclosed, even inadvertently by B, the mother and children would be required to move immediately. The support plan therefore provides for a “hiatus” in the father’s time with the children, during which time there would be indirect contact, work with B to explain the importance of not sharing her location with the father, and contact to be reviewed at the Child in In Need meetings and on the mother leaving the refuge in March or April 2026. At the same time an email was sent by the local authority confirming the work required of the father for a risk assessment of contact moving from a supervised to an unsupervised basis subsequent to the mother’s move out of the refuge, as follows:

The Guardian reflected on this changed position and came to the conclusion that she no longer supported the local authority’s plan, and says to the court that the making of a care order would be appropriate on the basis that the local authority would seek to discharge this once the mother has transitioned to caring for the children in the community. The Guardian’s changed position is supported by the father. The mother remains in support of the local authority’s position.

It is important to acknowledge that the changing positions and updated evidence recorded above have made for a more difficult hearing, for the parents, and in particular for the father who has seen the position change from a minimum of continuing supervised contact to a proposal for a lengthy period without contact with his children.

The application for a supervision order is made under section 31 of the Children Act 1989. A supervision order may only be made (section 31 (2)) if the court is satisfied:

These provisions are referred to as the threshold criteria and must be considered at the relevant date (usually when proceedings are issued). I must therefore be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the threshold criteria are met.

The court may, on an application for a care order, make a supervision order; and on an application for a supervision order, may make a care order (section 31 (5)).

If the threshold criteria are met then in deciding what order to make, if any, the child’s welfare is paramount (section 1(1) Children Act 1989). The question of delay must therefore be considered and particular regard given to the welfare checklist (section 1 (3)). Under the European Convention on Human Rights the Article 6 right to a fair hearing and the Article 8 right to respect for private and family life must both be taken into account so that any intervention is necessary and proportionate.

By Children Act 1989, s 31(1)(a), a care order places a child with respect to whom the order is made in the care of a designated local authority. The local authority shares parental responsibility for the child, but has the power to determine how any other holders may exercise parental responsibility (CA 1989, s 33).

By Children Act 1989, section 35 while a supervision order is in force it shall be the duty of the supervisor: (a) to advise, assist and befriend the supervised child; (b) to take such steps as are reasonably necessary to give effect to the order; and (c) where: (i) the order is not wholly complied with; or (ii) the supervisor considers that the order may no longer be necessary, to consider whether or not to apply to the court for its variation or discharge. In contrast to a care order, a child under a supervision order is not being “looked after” and the local authority does not have parental responsibility, nor the power to direct how those who do have parental responsibility may exercise it.

The orders available to the Court are as follows:

In JW (Child at Home under Care Order) [2023] EW Civ 944 the Court of Appeal gave guidance on the question of placement at home under a care order, and endorsed the Public Law Working Group recommendation and guidance as follows:

Further, McFarlane P:

“For the reasons that I have given, the reality is that, in a case such as this, where the risk is slow burning and the plan for monitoring and support is the same under either order, and where any attempt to remove the children from home would be likely to lead to further court proceedings, there was nothing that making a care order would add to the local authority’s ability to provide protection.”

Much of the evidence in this case concerns the background and issues highlighted in the threshold document, including the volatility of the parents’ relationship and abuse within that relationship, mental ill-health, substance misuse, and neglect and the effect of all of these on the children. Threshold having been almost agreed, that evidence is not recorded below, but I have considered all of the evidence that has been filed.

In his initial report dated 18 November 2024, the expert psychiatrist made a diagnosis of Recurrent Depressive Disorder and Emotionally Unstable Personality Disorder. His recommendations were that the mother continued with medication; that she would benefit from psychological treatment; that she needed to address her problems with substance misuse; that she should continue engagement with the Community Mental Health Team and should complete the Freedom Programme. He identified that the mother had the ability to make progress and could make demonstrable change over 12 months in favourable circumstances.

By the time of the expert’s second report, the motherhad engaged with the STEPPS programme (a specialist psychotherapy programme for people diagnosed with emotionally unstable personality disorder), the Phoenix domestic abuse course and the Solihull parenting programme, and also individual psychotherapy. He maintained his previous diagnoses and reach the following conclusion:

“87.

There are grounds for cautious optimism, although I can understand the Local Authority’s concerns that there has been a previous pattern of [the mother] making short term progress and separating from [the father], only then for her to resume their relationship, with a deterioration in her mental health and further substance misuse. It is also the case that she is in the protected and supportive environment of a Refuge, and it remains to be seen how she will fare once she returns to living independently in the community.

88.

[The mother] certainly has the ability to maintain the progress that she has made, and if she can do so, on psychiatric grounds she has ability to provide an adequate standard of parenting.”

A cognitive assessment of the father dated 13 September 2024, concluded that he does not have significant cognitive difficulties or learning needs. However, the author concluded that issues with concentration/inattention and emotional regulation were likely to impact on his ability to engage with the Court process. An intermediary was not recommended. The expert’s impression was that the father could identify the concerns of the local authority but lacked sufficient insight into the severity and complexity of the concerns. A number of strategies was suggested to ensure that the father had understood information, including the use of appropriate language and regular breaks, and the need for appropriate breaks was actively identified during the hearing.

The first tests covered the period from the start of July to the start of September 2024. The result strongly suggested the active use of cannabis and cocaine and it did not demonstrate excessive consumption of alcohol in this period.

The second tests covered the period from September to mid November 2024. The results indicated the use of cocaine in the first part of the period, but abstention for 4 to 6 weeks prior to sample collection. There was no evidence of excessive alcohol consumption.

The third tests covering the period from mid-November 2024 to early January 2025 were positive for cocaine, the expert assessment being this was more likely than not to represent regular passive exposure. There was no evidence of excessive alcohol consumption and the results were described as likely to represent no more than low level alcohol consumption.

The fourth tests covering the period from January to late April 2025, were again positive for cocaine, the expert assessment being that this was more likely than not to represent minimal passive exposure. Again, there was no evidence of excessive alcohol consumption and the results were described as likely to represent no more than low level alcohol consumption.

The evidence is therefore that since these proceedings commenced the mother has ceased the use of cannabis and cocaine and the excessive consumption of alcohol.

The first tests covered the period from the beginning of June 2024 to the beginning of September 2024. The father tested positive for cocaine use (but no other drugs) which was consistent with his declared use, and the findings suggested chronic excessive alcohol use.

The second tests showed decreasing cocaine use (or a cessation of use) in the period from the end of August 2024 until the end of October 2024 and showed continuing excessive alcohol use from the end of August 2024 to the end of October but not from the end of October to the end of November 2024.

The third tests detected the presence of cocaine but not the source. The results did not demonstrate the excessive consumption of alcohol from the start of October 2024 to the start of January 2025.

Cocaine was again detected in the fourth tests, but the results did not demonstrate the active use of cocaine between the middle of December 2024 and the middle of April 2025. Similarly, the results did not demonstrate the excessive consumption of alcohol from the middle of December 2024 to the middle of April 2025.

The evidence of the drug and alcohol testing is therefore that since these proceedings commenced the father has ceased the use of cocaine and the excessive use of alcohol.

The first assessment of the father as sole carer, is dated 13 January 2025. That assessment recorded the positive family time that had taken place, and the father’s understanding of the children’s basic needs, but was ultimately negative in particular as a result of the father minimising concerns about domestic abuse, substance misuse and physical chastisement.

The parenting assessor was concerned that the father did not show insight in relation to his previous excessive alcohol consumption or a report from the police concerning neglect due to intoxication. Her concern was that substance use having been a response to previous stress, the father’s ability to parent could be impacted in the future, if subjected to further stress.

Similarly, the parenting assessor was concerned that the father minimised the conflict between the parties during the relationship, alleged that some incidents had been made up by the maternal grandmother, and blamed the mother’s mental health for arguments between them.

The parenting assessor recommended:

The father denied any physical chastisement of the children, except for an appropriate smack on the hand, although A and B had reported more significant discipline.

The updated Parenting Assessment of the father as a sole carer dated 4 June 2025 reached the same conclusion. He was described as presenting as a warm, loving and calm parent during family time. The assessor acknowledged the father’s commitment to family time, his reduction and abstinence from drug and alcohol use, and his efforts to obtain his own accommodation. However, the assessor was concerned that there was little evidence of change and she was concerned that:

In the first social work statement, the social worker was clear that the mother loves and cares for the children and is able to meet their basic needs, but that the concern has been of her ability to do so. B was described as bright and articulate and able to express her wishes and feelings clearly. The social worker also referred to evidence that the father is able to care for the children and meet their needs, and described supervised family time as having been positive. The plan was for this to continue on a supervised basis for two hours each week. The father’s anger as described by the children and towards social workers was also set out, including references to a number of abusive telephone calls in which the father would scream and shout.

A statement dated 2 October 2024 described the local authority’s concerns in relation to contact, and in particular an incident on 19 September 2024 when the father accompanied the mother to her contact with A. Until that point the father’s contact had been arranged for Saturday, so as not to disrupt his employment commitments, but this was in a private setting supervised by agency workers and the local authority deemed this unsafe due to the father’s “unpredictable and unregulated behaviour” towards professionals. After this there was some disruption to the father’s contact with the children, for varying reasons.

By the time of the statement dated 17 July 2025, the mother’s engagement with support services and positive changes were acknowledged, but the care plan remained unchanged, given that these efforts were in their early stages and had not yet been sustained:

“Without clear evidence of long-term, meaningful change, there remains a high risk that [the mother] will revert toprevious behaviours, placing the children at continued risk of emotional neglect, psychological harm, and disruption to their development and wellbeing.”

The social worker remained concerned about some of the father’s behaviour towards the children, including swearing and shouting and mimicking B when she was upset. The father’s engagement with support services was described as limited, since he was unable to recall any learning from the parenting course and had missed sessions with the Intervention Alliance. At the same time, the father was described as showing a strong emotional bond with the children; as being affectionate, attentive and caring during contact sessions and consistently attending family time. In addition, the father:

“shows a good understanding of daily parenting responsibilities. He is familiar with the children’s routines, including school runs, meal preparation, and bedtime schedules. He is attentive to their dietary preferences and recognises the importance of structure and sleep for their development.”

The most recent social work statement dated 19 September 2025 repeats the concern about the father’s engagement with support services. The father was asked about his engagement with Intervention Alliance and the social worker’s assessment of his response was that he had not taken on board the discussions that he had had. Similarly he lacked insight in relation to his previous use of drugs and alcohol.

The mother was described as insightful and honest with the assistance of the ongoing trauma counselling and domestic abuse work with which she was engaged. She had completed all of the courses requested of her.

B’s wishes and feelings are described as fluctuating and social worker’s overall assessment was that B just wants to be loved and seeks this from many adult caregivers given the instability that she has previously experienced. C is too young to express his wishes and feelings, but clearly enjoys family time with both parents, and has a strong bond with B.

The final care plan recommends that the mother should seek a third party to facilitate family time between the children and the father given the concerns of abuse between them, and the mother suggested a contact centre.

In her oral evidence, the social worker said that when she visited B on about 18^th October and explained the transition plan, B had lots of questions (which continued when she spent time with the maternal grandmother) and an intense curiosity which the social worker described as coming from a place of anxiety. She saw an activity that the foster carer had booked and during her time with him told the father she was going to that activity. For that reason there is a real concern that once she is aware of the location of the refuge, B would share the information with the father. Given the number of transitions that there have been for the children, the social worker described the prospect of a move to another refuge as potentially very distressing.

The social worker amplified the proposals in the amended supervision order support plan as follows:

The social worker saw the mother remaining in a refuge as beneficial, given the support services available to her and the presence of a key worker.

The social worker acknowledged the strong emotional bond that the children have with their father and that contact has been consistent and mostly positive, and that contact stopping was only due to the risk of B disclosing the refuge location. In relation to the work carried out by the father to date:

The social worker was asked what would happen if, with a Supervision Order in place, the mother was resistant to contact between the children and their father. She said that there would be strong discussions with the mother, but accepted that the local authority would not have Parental Responsibility, and that there was therefore a risk of early private law proceedings. She agreed that such proceedings could destabilise the placement but hoped that the father would understand the reasons for the period of no contact, and not make such an application. Acknowledging that such proceedings would be difficult, she said there was a point at which the local authority had to step out and that she hoped both parents would understand the need to be child focused.

In practical terms, with a Supervision Order, the social worker would be in place for a further six weeks, and the case would then pass to the district team.

The social worker was asked about the risks to the children from contact with their father stopping, and said it was not ideal, but the only solution. If the children did not settle because of not seeing the father, the children would need reassurance, and hopefully play therapy would be in place. She remained of the view that contact should be supervised and referred for example, to the incident on 25^th October when she accepted that the father’s upset and frustration was not when the children were present, but noted that he needed the support of the contact workers to calm down.

In answer to my questions, the social worker said that if C was to spend time with his father without B, B would feel alienated by this, in particular, given the degree of responsibility that she feels for C. She said that one-to-one time would be explored, but that it was very difficult in the short term and on balance, the benefit to C of seeing his father was outweighed by the risks to B.

Asked about the risk that the father looks for the refuge, the social worker said that this was why protective orders were also sought.

The social worker’s evidence was that in circumstances where the Parenting Assessment made clear the effect of physical chastisement on the children, they had been caused harm by the father’s actions.

I recognise the very considerable amount of work that the social worker has done during the course of this hearing and in preparation for the hearing, though it would have assisted all parties, if the impact of the observations of B on 18^th October had been considered earlier, as well as earlier enquiries of the refuge. The court and the parties have been assisted by the updated versions of the supervision order support plan, but in considering the detail of that plan, I found some aspects of the social worker’s evidence general and aspirational. For example, the timetable for work with B is entirely uncertain as are concrete plans for the father’s involvement in that work. The social worker expressed the hope that the parties would take child focused decisions, and that early private law proceedings would not be necessary, but the realistic basis for that hope was unclear.

I have considered the mother’s evidence, most of which is concerned with the history of the relationship and in particular allegations of domestic abuse within that relationship.

In her most recent statement the mother agreed the local authority’s plans and confirmed the support that is available to her at the refuge. She agreed the suggestion of a Prohibited Steps Order, though without identifying any specific reasons for this.

The mother alleges that the father continues to stalk her, and that she has received messages from his friends and associates in [redacted], which she has blocked. She also says that when in his statement the father refers to her having a new partner and to holidays (“despite [the mother] claiming that matters have been tough and she is in a refuge, she has in fact travelled on holidays to Turkey and enjoying herself with her new partner”), this is only information he could obtain by spying on her social media.

The mother did not give oral evidence.

I have considered the father’s evidence, the bulk of which is his response to the mother’s account of the issues in the relationship, and his views regarding the appropriate placement of the children. In his statement dated 24 September 2025 the father says that he has completed the Healthy Relationships Programme domestic abuse course. He makes the point that he has been holding down a stable job, has his own home and has been free of alcohol and drugs. He alleges that he has been a victim of harassment from the mother and the maternal family.

In his most recent statement, the father proposed overnight contact from Saturday to Sunday on alternate weekends, with video calls in between. He would like additional time during school holidays, but his work commitments make it difficult to define this. He suggested a transition whereby contact moves to a contact centre (which he would fund for a limited number of sessions), after which contact would move to Saturday or Sunday contact before progressing to overnight. The father expressed his clear concern that without an order being made, his contact with the children would not be supported or progressed.

In his oral evidence, the father described the local authority’s proposal that there should be a gap in contact as absolute madness. He said the risks of the refuge location being disclosed could be dealt with by him talking to B and explaining to her that she could not tell him things. He was understandably emotional when talking about not seeing the children, and when upset, said that the break in contact was only good for the social workers and mother. However, in re-examination he confirmed that he would work with someone in relation to what to say in cards or letters. The father was asked about what benefits he could see in the children’s placement with the mother, at the same time as the suspension of contact, and said none apart from them being with their mother and that there was no benefit to him or the children. Asked what he could do, he said nothing, and that letters and videos were nonsense. His only explanation would be that he was away with work and he did not know what he could say.

The father was asked about the incident at contact on 25^th October. He was asked whether he only calmed down because the contact supervisor was there, and said that was nonsense, and that he calmed down himself. He agreed what was said in the incident form. He accepted that he was angry but not that he would have behaved in this way if the children were there. He accepted he should have done better. He also accepted that he was still upset when the contact started and that the children were aware of this, and that during the contact, he referred to the fact that they should have gone pumpkin picking.

The father was asked about the course on domestic abuse that he attended and said that he learned a “wee bit”, for example, watching videos on things that might trigger behaviour. He would now allow the local authority information about that course. Asked further about why he had not started this work earlier, the father said that he had “this thing called a job” but accepted that his relationship with the mother was abusive at the end.

Like the domestic abuse course, the parenting course was also online. He said that he tried to fit this course in after work and would sometimes fall asleep on the bed while watching the videos.

The father will undertake further work and courses, if the Court determines that this is necessary. He acknowledged the previous use of cocaine, but said that he was not that big a drug addict and did not need any substance abuse work.

The father was asked about the impact of domestic abuse on the children. He acknowledged that he was verbally abusive to the mother (though this was not a one-way street) and that the children would probably have been upset by this, and he accepted responsibility for this. Similarly he acknowledged that he sometimes shouted at the children (though not because he was angry) and that they would probably have been upset by this.

The father denies any ongoing stalking of the mother, and said that a third party had sent a message.

The father was asked about a potential ADHD assessment, and said that he had been waiting for 1½ years and has made further enquiries. He could see the potential benefit of such an assessment in terms of anger management.

Asked about the video that he sent to the Guardian, the father accepted that his manner was not very nice and that he should not have called the mother names, but said that he had sent it so that the Guardian was aware of the things to watch out for, and not to rely on what the mother says.

The father’s evidence in relation to physical chastisement was that he last smacked either of the children four years ago, not too hard and only on the hand, and that now he does not ever raise his hand to them and would make them apologise if they have misbehaved. When he did smack them, he was not overly angry, but accepts it was wrong. He accepted that it caused physical harm because the children probably got a fright and that B felt sad.

During the course of his evidence, there were a number of significant elements of the father’s presentation:

That presentation was consistent with evidence regarding his interaction with professionals, including the contact supervisor, and I adopt the Guardian’s summary thatonce the father has:

I accept that when the father says “I grew up in [redacted], it’s different” that is right, and also that he is emphatic and loud in his speech, but not that I should view the effect of abusive language or anger on the children differently. In considering his responses, I have also taken into account the possibility of an ADHD diagnosis, though that has not yet been made.

The Guardian describes the children as settled well into their current foster placement, and experiencing a period of stability which has been of significant benefit. B is settled and making good progress at school and at C is attending nursery and enjoying this.

B is described as a lively, inquisitive and kind little girl, who in the longer term may require further neurodiversity assessment. She is described as hypervigilant in supervising C and around adults, constantly questioning the adults around her. The Guardian’s view is that she has been exposed to arguments and the parties speaking about each other negatively, which has led to her feeling confused about her relationships with the important adults in her life. B will have access to play therapy in the refuge, and after leaving the refuge next spring.

C is described as a cheeky, mischievous and intelligent little boy, with exceptional speech and language for his age. He is in good health and like his sister enjoys family time with both parents.

Family time is described as consistently positive with the mother and largely positive with the father. The concerns about his time have been where he was aggressive towards staff at a recent session and where he has occasionally found it difficult to take advice on board.

The Guardian describes the mother as having made significant progress during the last six months, engaging in a wealth of support (including therapy, domestic abuse courses and parenting courses) and working well with all professionals. The Guardian has found the mother an insightful woman who has a deep understanding of the children’s emotions and needs.

In her conversations with the father, the Guardian has observed glimmers of insight and reflection on his part, but remains concerned about his lack of insight and a focus on the mother. The father suggested to her that he might have ADHD, which causes him difficulties in his emotional regulation and communication, and he is awaiting an ADHD assessment. The Guardian refers to a video sent to her on 11 October 2025, in which he refers to the mother as a “nasty piece of shit”, and which he said was provided to gain evidence. The Guardian discussed this with the father and she was concerned that although he appeared to take on board what she said, there had been a similar discussion not long before. I have viewed that video.

The Guardian’s view is that it is clearly important that the children maintain their relationship with their father, and that this should continue to be on a supervised basis while further work is completed with the father by the local authority to ensure that he is able to regulate himself appropriately in front of the children, and when involved in discussions about their mother and their care. A diagnosis of ADHD and appropriate treatment for this might be relevant.

In giving her oral evidence, the Guardian provided her amended recommendation to the Court. That recommendation had changed, because it had not previously been the local authority’s plan that contact would be suspended. In her view a supervision plan was insufficient to manage the difficult process of that suspension and reintroduction. A care order, however, would place a greater responsibility on the local authority in circumstances where an already fragile placement with the mother would be made more fragile by the suspension of contact. She did not think the necessary work could be done under a Child in Need plan or that private law proceedings would be adequate. She was particularly concerned that B has complex needs and that B has seen constant change which now includes a new social worker and key worker as well as her fourth primary school. The Guardian had thought carefully about the father’s time with C and said that C is well advanced in his speech and language and that B would be aware of C’s time with the father as a result. Although finely balanced, she agreed with the social worker that suspension of contact would have to involve both children, and she supported this as necessary (albeit with consequences) to the placement of the children with the mother.

The Guardian was challenged about whether the legal framework would make a difference in practical terms. She accepted that the minimum frequency of visits is less for a child in care, but emphasised the benefit of work continuing to be dealt with by the same social worker or under the same team. She accepted that on a subsequent discharge of the care order there would be a new social work team at that stage. In relation to the risk of private law proceedings, she acknowledged there could be some support for the parents in those proceedings, but said that would not replicate the support in these proceedings. Her concern is that the parents (and she is not sure they have the capacity to manage this difficult issue, given the relationship between them) will be left to navigate the re-introduction of contact in the remaining 4 to 5 months of local authority support under a supervision plan (albeit the local authority could apply to extend a supervision order). She raised the possibility that a supervision order might be made on discharge of the care order, but clearly that is unknown.

Asked about the level of intervention for the children under a care order, the Guardian acknowledged this, but said that it comes with real benefits, for example support through Virtual School Kent, and the more robust oversight that an IRO can provide. Given the level of intervention that the children have already experienced, she did not see this is harmful.

The Guardian described a Prohibited Steps Order as setting boundaries. She maintained her view that the father’s contact should continue to be supervised, her concern being about his level of regulation, although acknowledging that this was largely before or after contact with children.

I was impressed with the considered and thoughtful evidence of the Guardian. She reflected on her position as the evidence evolved and was fair to both parents in her assessment of that evidence.

I have read and considered the Contact Report dated 25 October 2025 and the Incident Report form of the same date. Those documents record the father’s frustration on arrival for contact when told that the children were going pumpkin picking with the mother as part of the transition for their return to her care, and would therefore not be going with him. The Incident Report records:

“Dad got very angry, began to swear. The supervisor gave Dad a few minutes to calm down, they both remained standing outside and as he calmed down, she explained to him that he needed to calm down and stop swearing otherwise the contact would not go ahead. The supervisor asked Dad what he wanted to do? Dad said ‘I want to see my children, but why does she get everything, she gets the f***** kids, she gets F****** everything, yet she is the one on drugs, leaves my children unattended….Dad’s temper escalated quite quickly, he threw his hands in the air, swore and then kicked the large plastic bin that was situated in the car park…”

The father was able to calm down and contact took place without further issue, although the father used some time to send an email to his solicitors and apologised early in the session for his head not being in it today.

Threshold has been agreed, save that the father agreed the following:

“[The father] shouts at B and A, and their mother, and has smacked them when he is angry and they have misbehaved.”

but not that this exposed the children to emotional and physical harm or the risk of such harm.

However, in his evidence to the Court, the father acknowledged that this behaviour had caused physical and emotional harm, and also taking into account the other available evidence, including, for example, what was said by B to the school, I am satisfied that this behaviour exposed the children to this harm.

The evidence is not clear, the social worker describing B’s wishes and feelings as fluctuating, and the Guardian’s direct work with B commenting on B liking to feel in control. C is too young to express his wishes and feelings. Both the social worker and Guardian emphasise the trauma and inconstancy that both children have experienced in their care, and from the evidence I am satisfied that both children wish to be cared for by a parent and spend time with the other (the relationship with both parents being extremely important to them), in a stable and constant environment free of trauma.

Both parents are capable of meeting the children’s basic needs, but both acknowledge that as a result of the toxic and abusive relationship between them, the mother’s mental health and the previous substance misuse of both parties, they have failed to do so on a consistent basis.

I am satisfied from the evidence of the support that the mother has accessed and the work that she has done since she has been in the refuge, that she has shown the potential to provide consistent care for the children in the future. That is the view of all parties, acknowledging the “cautious optimism” of the psychiatric expert, the Guardian’s view as to the fragility of the placement and the reservations of the father.

I am also satisfied that the father has evidenced some insight into the relationship and the effect of abusive behaviour, and I acknowledge the very significant steps that he has taken in stopping his drug and alcohol use, and in maintaining stable employment and accommodation. However, the evidence of the father’s limited level of insight is compelling, both from his own limited descriptions of what he has learnt, and the reality of his actions. When attending contact on 25^th October the father must have known the importance of presenting to the Court a positive view of his time with the children, but he was unable to control his anger at the perceived unfairness of not being able to take the children pumpkin picking and his upset continued into his time with the children. His sense of anger and injustice extended into his evidence to the Court.

There has been a significant failure to properly meet B’s educational needs. On a move to the refuge she will have to move to her fourth primary school at the age of eight. On a subsequent move out of the refuge, she may well have to move to another school.

At present, both children are settled and happy with foster carers. However, this is not a plan for their long-term care. There will be disruption to both children on a move from foster carers to the mother’s care in the refuge, and further disruption on a move out of the refuge. That will be unsettling and potentially difficult, in particular for B.

Throughout the course of the proceedings the children have spent supervised time with their father on a weekly basis which he has attended consistently and which is acknowledged by all the professionals to have been largely positive. What is now proposed is that there will be a suspension of contact, potentially for six or seven months, which the father understandably finds difficult to comprehend or accept. I share his concern about the effect of this suspension on the children, which will be difficult to explain or justify.

B is a lively, inquisitive and kind eight year old girl, and an attentive and thoughtful sister. She is described as watchful and keen to listen to adult conversations and hypervigilant, including in supervising C. She is close to her half-brother A and her continuing relationship with him is extremely important. She may in the future require a neurodiversity assessment.

C is a cheeky, mischievous and intelligent two year old boy, whose speech and language is exceptional for a child of his age. He is extremely close to his sister B and follows her around, copying her.

Neither child has any identified physical health needs.

Both children have been exposed to harm in the care of their parents. That harm, or risk of harm, is accepted by the parents as having been the exposure of both children to their toxic and abusive relationship, including physical harm; emotional harm and neglect as a result of the mother’s mental health needs; and physical and emotional harm and neglect as a result of the parents’ previous substance misuse.

As set out above, both parents are capable of meeting the children’s basic needs and both parents have the potential to fully meet the children’s needs. I accept the evidence of the mother, Guardian, social worker and expert psychiatrist and find that the mother has made sufficient changes and progress that she is safely able to care for the children at this stage.

The father does not seek to care for the children full-time, but he does seek unsupervised contact with them.

I have not ignored the positive special guardianship assessment of the paternal grandparents who were assessed as capable of meeting the needs of both children, but in circumstances where the paternal grandmother confirmed to me at the pre-trial review that she did not seek to contest the care plan, I do not need to consider this further.

I have taken into account all of the powers available to the Court, and identify those orders which I consider potentially appropriate below. I raised with the parties the possibility of an order being supported by a section 91 (14) direction, and that was not a suggestion adopted by any party.

The court should only make an order if it is satisfied that it is better than making no order.

I am required to evaluate all of the options, undertaking a global, holistic and multifaceted evaluation of the child’s welfare, which takes into account all of the negatives and positives, all the pros and cons of each option.

In conducting my analysis I proceed on the basis that the court should begin with a preference for the less interventionist rather than the more interventionist approach. The order made must be necessary and proportionate.

The most important question at this hearing is whether the Court should approve placement of the children with the mother in the refuge, in circumstances where the practical effect of this is to suspend, for an unknown period of time, the children’s time with their father.

I note:

I accept the Guardian’s analysis (agreed by the social worker) that there are significant risks in the placement with the mother. These arise from the period of time in which they have been outside of her care, the disruption to the settled relationship that the children have built with their foster carers, the need for B to change school and for C to change nursery, the ongoing nature of the mother’s therapeutic support and the need for her continued abstinence (without there having been substance abuse work), and to maintain her separation from the father and refrain from any further abusive relationship.

There is now the further and very significant risk that arises if the children’s time with their father is suspended. I accept that this will be profoundly disruptive for the children and the father. The father says that this is unnecessary because he is able to speak with B so that she understands that she cannot disclose the refuge location and says that he would shut her down if she tried to do so. I accept this as the father’s genuinely held view, but do not accept that the risk could be mitigated in this way when B has already disclosed an activity to the father without prompting; when, as the Guardian says, B is being asked to do something that is in complete contradiction to work previously done with her about the importance of not keeping secrets; and in the knowledge of B’s lively intelligence and hypervigilance. My conclusion is that in the event of contact there is a real risk that the refuge location would be disclosed, and that this can only be mitigated through time being allowed for work with B.

The extent of the disruption if a change of refuge was required would go beyond a change of physical location and would potentially include disruption to the therapeutic support being provided to the mother and to B; the school and nursery attended by the children; work with B to enable safe contact and potentially to the practical arrangements for any contact.

When I balance the longer term benefit for the children of a stable placement being established and maintained with their mother, both in and beyond the refuge, against the shorter term detriment of being deprived of time with their father, I come to the firm but reluctant conclusion that it is only by suspending direct time that the longer term placement can be given a realistic prospect of success.

In saying this I would add:

The conclusion that I have reached means that the issue of whether the father’s contact should be supervised or unsupervised is of less prominence. However, the children’s time with their father will resume as soon as this is safely possible and my decision is that, subject to an updating risk assessment, this should continue to be on a supervised basis. The reason for this is that I am satisfied from the evidence that the father needs to engage in further work to regulate his emotions and restrain his upset and anger; that his insight into the effect of the abusive relationship between him and the mother on the children is limited; and that further work to enable his safe parenting of the children is required. In saying this I acknowledge both the lengthy period for which there has been supervised contact and the father’s commitment to contact, and also the view of all professionals as being that that contact has largely been positive. However, whatever the overarching legal framework, the father is going to need to work indirectly with the mother going forward to manage and maintain the contact he seeks, and that is only likely to be successful if he engages and benefits from the further work that the local authority have identified in the supervision order support plan.

The options put forward to the Court are to make a Care Order with the expectation that the local authority will apply to discharge the order once the mother has moved with the children into the community or to make a supervision order on the basis of the supervision order support plan has now filed with the Court. There is no separate care plan in the event that a care order is made, though I would anticipate that the support identified in the supervision order support plan would be repeated.

In addition, although not invited to adjourn by any party, I consider the possibility of an adjournment.

I am satisfied that there are potentially a number of benefits to a care order being made. The key benefit is the sharing of parental responsibility by the local authority to enable robust decisions about contact to be made, and potentially challenged. The local authority has a duty to allow reasonable contact under a care order and given the acknowledged uncertainties about timescales, necessary work and level of risk, the ongoing assessment of reasonable contact is going to be dynamic.

A further key benefit is continuity. I accept that there might be reasons that the currently allocated social worker does not continue to work with the family, but the making of a care order provides for the real possibility of this and for work to be managed in the same team, with the benefit of the knowledge and established relationships within that team. This element is of particular significance given the number of changes of placement that the children have experienced. However, it is only of significance for the duration of the care order.

There were other potential benefits identified by the Guardian, for example, Virtual School Kent, to assist B in her further school transitions, but the larger point is the responsibility and oversight for which a care order provides. The local authority acknowledges that with a supervision order in place, they can only encourage and support the parents to navigate the very difficult process of the suspension of contact and its reintroduction, in circumstances where a significant part of the reason for the local authority’s involvement is the inability of the parents to work together.

I have considered what has been said about the much greater support (through legal representation) available to the parents if ongoing issues in relation to contact are addressed in public law proceedings rather than in private law proceedings between the parents. While I acknowledge this benefit, I accept what is said by the local authority that there is a point at which they step back, and in my judgment, this benefit would not be a proper reason for determining the legal structure.

There are potential disadvantages to the making of a care order. The Court should always consider the least interventionist approach and the making of a care order provides for a significant continuing level of statutory intervention. It does not provide for finality, given that an application to discharge is anticipated within a modest period.

It was submitted on behalf of the Guardian that when I consider the appropriate legal authority, it is not JW (Child at Home under Care Order) [2023] EW Civ 944 because the children are not being placed at home. I do not accept that submission and accept what was submitted by the local authority, namely that the family are not being provided with accommodation by the local authority and that at present the refuge is the mother’s home. But for the issue regarding the disclosure of the refuge’s location, the situation would be analogous to the mother being in temporary accommodation, awaiting a move to more permanent accommodation (in which case the full range of protective orders would be available to the Court to enable and assist with safe contact).

I therefore have JW at the forefront of my mind, and in particular that a care order should not be used solely as a vehicle to achieve the provision of support and services after the conclusion of proceedings, and that a care order on the basis of a child living at home should only be made where there are exceptional reasons for doing so.

There are potential benefits to a supervision order being made on the basis of the final version of the supervision order support plan. It provides for a lower level of intervention in the lives of this family and, as submitted by the local authority, the support plan would enable the same work with B and support for indirect contact; for a risk assessment of the need for continuing supervision of the father’s contact; for ongoing review of the contact arrangements (in Child in Need meetings); for local authority supervision of contact for a period of three months once reintroduced; and for a greater minimum level of visits to the children.

The potential disadvantages of a supervision order are that the local authority would not share parental responsibility and could therefore only guide and assist the parents in making decisions about the continuing suspension of contact and its reintroduction. In addition, after six weeks there would be a transfer of the case to a district team, and therefore a change of social work responsibilities.

A care order would be a final order, but in circumstances that anticipate an application for its discharge. A supervision order would be a final order. An adjournment at this stage would delay the making of any final order. The potential benefits of an adjournment are that the Court could consider the position at a stage when some of the current unknowns are known, for example, the reaction of the children to the transition to their mother’s care; the effect on B of a further change of school; the reaction of both children to the suspension of time with their father; and the effectiveness of further work with B, including in play therapy.

However an adjournment would involve delay in proceedings that have already extended over 14 months.

When I balance the advantages and disadvantages of each order that is available to the Court, I am not satisfied that an adjournment would be in the best interests of the children. Given the number of changes that there have been in the arrangements for their care, the greatest possible certainty for them, and for their parents is fundamental.

I have very carefully weighed the benefits and disadvantages of the making of a care or supervision order at this stage, taking into account the final version of the supervision order support plan, and I have reached the conclusion that a care order should be made. In doing so, I acknowledge the uncertainty that derives from the fact that this will in practice necessitate further proceedings, but I am satisfied that in circumstances where a transition to a fragile placement is ongoing and in circumstances where there are profoundly difficult changes to be navigated in relation to contact, it is only the legal responsibility and oversight that comes with the making of a care order that fully meets the needs of these children. In saying this I acknowledge the greater level of intervention for the children but do not consider this a significant detriment in circumstances where the children, and parents, have been subject to a lengthy period of significant intervention.

In reaching this conclusion, I have also considered carefully whether the circumstances of this case can be described as exceptional. The background of abuse and level of conflict between the parents, and the difficulties in managing conflict that follow from that, are not exceptional. What is exceptional is the conclusion that to maintain this placement the children must be deprived of time with their father, and therefore the need to support this family as fully as possible to manage that transition, and the transition back to regular time with him.

The mother seeks a non-molestation order against the father and the local authority also views this as necessary. At the pre-trial review I indicated that an application for a non-molestation order would require a separate application accompanied by a supporting statement. No such application has been made, or a statement filed, because although an application for legal aid to cover this has been made, that has not been determined. The mother relies on her most recent statement, which contains limited allegations without supporting evidence (for example of messages sent), to support a continuing application.

The agreed threshold records the father’s breach of bail conditions in 2019 (possibly with the mother’s consent), and in 2024 (when the mother lied about his presence at her property in breach of the bail conditions).

The father also makes allegations about harassment from the mother and her family, again without supporting evidence.

The Court has power under section 42 (2) (b) Family Law Act 1996 to make a non-molestation order in any family proceedings to which the respondent is a party, if the court considers the order should be made for the benefit of any other party to the proceedings or any relevant child (even though no such application has been made). On the basis of the evidence that I have read and heard about the continuing level of conflict between the parties and their families, and the background of a need for legal intervention, I am satisfied that it will benefit both of the children for an order to be made against each parent for a period of 12 months. This is to enable and support both the period in which contact is suspended and its reintroduction.

The mother also applies for a Prohibited Steps Order restraining the father from removing the children from her care, or from the care of anybody to whom she has entrusted their care, to set boundaries and to provide stability for the children in their mother’s care. I am not satisfied that there is a need for an order. There is no recent evidence that the father has in any way acted to disrupt the placement of the children and he supports their placement with their mother. He will know what the effect of unilateral action by him would be, and his focus has been on there being appropriate contact arrangements that best meet the children’s needs.

The father has made an application for a contact order and in circumstances where I have determined that there will be no contact at present, that application is dismissed.

I anticipate that there are further applications and directions that I will be invited to make which I will consider having handed down this judgment. I intend to direct that this case is re-allocated to me, and that any further hearings are listed before me.