2 Redcliff Street
Bristol
BS1 6GR
Date of hearing:21, 22 and 23 October 2025
Before:
DISTRICT JUDGE NAPIER
Between:
(1) MGP (2) MGM | Applicants |
- and – | |
M | Respondent |
Ms Carrie MASON appeared for the Applicants
Mr Richard PINHORN appearedfor the Respondent
JUDGMENT
Handed down by email circulation on 31 October 2025
DISTRICT JUDGE NAPIER
The Court is concerned with two twin girls. They are between five and ten years’ old.
The First and Second Applicants are the girls’ maternal grandfather and grand mother respectively. The Respondent is their mother. There is no involvement of the girls’ father in their lives and this has been the case for a significant period of time. He does not have parental responsibility and so, under FPR 12.3, is not a respondent in the case.
The Applicants have applied for a special guardianship order in respect of both girls. The Respondent has been deemed to have made a cross-application for a child arrangements order for the girls to live with her in the North of England (“City A”).
CASE BACKGROUND
A directions hearing was first held on 1 November 2024 before District Judge (MC) Wattam. The parties had agreed an interim position that the girls would live with the Applicants and spend time with the Respondent every Sunday for three hours in the community. Directions were given for the filing for local authority documents, but the substantive process was adjourned as the Respondent was awaiting a legal aid funding decision and needed to obtain legal representation.
On 9 January 2025, the parties attended before District Judge Brown. The Respondent was now legally represented (and has remained throughout). The interim contact order was continued, and the Court noted the contact was now five hours once per week. District Judge Brown deemed the Respondent to have made an application for a child arrangements order and ordered safeguarding checks from CAFCASS. Further statements, disclosure, and evidence was ordered, and the Court ordered South Gloucestershire Council (“the Council”) to complete a section 7 report. The Court ordered an SGO addendum report as the one which had been filed was not compliant with the Regulations and contained no recommendations.
On 25 February 2025, District Judge Brown was informed that the Council and CAFCASS needed more time to undertake their respective reports. She granted extensions of time to both and listed a contested interim contact hearing on 10 April 2025.
The hearing of 10 April 2025 was my first involvement with the case and, bearing in mind more substantive issues were now being resolved, I have retained it to provide judicial continuity. The parties had agreed that an updated SGO assessment was required and Ms A (the section 7 report writer) informed the Court that, sensibly, she wished to observe contact both in Bristol and in City A. The parties agreed a number of directions by consent and the question of interim contact was adjourned for a short period to 30 April 2025.
On 30 April 2025, following discussions between the parties, I ordered a number of overnight contacts at weekends to allow Ms A to observe the contact in Bristol and in City A. I ordered contingent arrangements for interim contact until the DRA due to be heard on 6 August – the arrangements were dependent on Ms A’s written recommendations to be provided in due course.
The section 7 report was completed and filed, and the DRA was heard before me on 6 August 2025. There was no agreement between the parties as to how the case could be finally resolved. The Applicants submitted that I should summarily resolve matters at the DRA in line with the principles of Re A, B and C [2025] EWCA Civ 55 now that the section 7 report had reached a clear conclusion. I refused to take the final decision at that point for the reasons given in my judgment at that time. The parties agreed a number of directions to final hearing by consent, and I heard contested submissions on the question of interim contact. I ordered alternate weekend interim contact from 11am on Saturday to 2pm on Sunday and permitted the Respondent’s partner and her children to be present.
Before the final hearing, the Applicants made an application for the Respondent’s medical records – which were reviewed by Ms A in her section 7 report – to be disclosed to them. I granted the application on the papers but limited their disclosure to the Applicant’s Solicitors and permitted them to take instructions on a ‘gist’ of what they said. The Respondent applied within time for me to reconsider that decision, which I did at the outset of the final hearing. For the reasons given in my ex tempore judgment, I did not change my original order. I permitted the Respondent, if so advised, to disclose more up to date medical records if she wished to put them before the Court in support of her position of continuing improvement in her health.
There was also an application by the Respondent to rely on a witness statement filed by her partner (which was filed late). For the reasons given in an ex tempore judgment, I granted permission and said the Court would permit wider evidence in chief from the Applicants in their oral evidence if needed to respond to any points made in that statement.
The final hearing has been held before me over three days. I have heard from Ms A, the Applicants, the Respondent, and her partner. Both parties have had a full opportunity to test the evidence and make their arguments to the Court. I am satisfied this final hearing of the application has been fair.
THE LAW
It is convenient, before turning to the details of the case and the evidence, to remind myself what law applies to the case.
The welfare and best interests of the girls are the paramount consideration for the Court. They trump all other considerations.
It is presumed that the involvement of the Respondent will further the welfare of the girls. There is, however, no presumption in favour of natural parents or grandparents in a welfare analysis: Re B (A Child) [2010] 1 FLR 551. I note paragraph 37 of the speech of Lord Kerr JSC:
“…All consideration of the importance of parenthood in private law disputes about residence must be firmly rooted in an examination of what is in the child’s best interests. This is the paramount consideration. It is only as a contributor to the child’s welfare that parenthood assumes any significance. In common with all other factors bearing on what is in the best interests of the child, it must be examined for its potential to fulfil that aim…”
In deciding what the best interests of the girls are, the Court must consider the welfare checklist set out in section 1(3) of the Act. I will return to this in my analysis later.
The effect of granting the Respondent’s application is to authorise an internal relocation. The Applicants wish to have the girls living with them in Bristol. The Respondent wishes them to come and live with her in City A (with her partner and her children).
Internal relocation cases, by their binary nature, bring with them a decision between competing options. The law is clear that the welfare principle is still the overriding consideration. The Court must undertake a global and holistic assessment of both options independently and then compare them to each other. It is not a linear assessment, nor is there a presumption that one option is the default from which the Court begins to work. It is not a case of deciding who is the primary carer and working from there.
The effect of the Applicants’ request to be appointed special guardians carries with it similar hallmarks in the correct approach. Special guardianship is a serious and important matter to which the Court must give the most careful consideration. Granting the order will mean preventing the Respondent from exercising her parental responsibility over the girls if the Applicants disagree with her. If granting the Respondent’s application for a child arrangements order is a realistic option as a final outcome, then the Court must undertake a comparative welfare analysis between the special guardianship order and a less instrusive child arrangements order.
Each case is highly fact specific. I bear in mind also my decision affects both the Article 8 right to a private and family life of the girls, and the rights of the parties themselves.
Delay in resolving proceedings is not in the best interests of the girls. The case comes on for final hearing 60 weeks after the application was first made. However, I am satisfied that steps between each hearing were necessary and needed to lay the foundations for a proper and robust welfare decision for the girls. In particular, I am grateful to Ms A for the commitment and dedication she has shown to her role at the various stages and the detailed care she has taken in carrying out her review of the family and her report.
EVIDENCE
I do not intend to dwell on the distant past because it is not particularly relevant to the evaluation taking place six years’ later. However, brief scene setting is needed.
It is uncontested that, since they were two weeks’ old, the girls have lived with the Applicants – sometimes with the Respondent there as well, latterly not. The Respondent was in a very different place physically and emotionally when she fell pregnant with the girls. Bristol Children’s Services became involved in advance of birth due to concerns about her engagement with the NHS and serious concerns about her mental health, housing, and potentially abusive relationship with her then partner (the girls’ father). The unborn girls were placed on a Child Protection Plan.
It was agreed at that time that the girls would live with the Applicants as a protective measure and they have done so ever since.
In the intervening years, there have been several occasions for monitoring by children’s services due to, what was reported to be, fluctuating levels of involvement by the Respondent. The overall stance of the authorities has been to consider that the girls are safe and protected in the Applicants’ care.
All those who gave evidence confirmed that everyone was motivated by the best interests of the girls and there was no bad faith. It was just that there are different viewpoints about what is the best outcome. I agree with that assessment.
As I summarise the evidence, I will not set out every detail of it, nor the parts which are well known to the parties. It is trite to say that both parties have put forward large swathes of evidence which, in toto, supported their respective positions.
Claire House – Section 7 Report Writer
I heard first from the section 7 report writer, Ms A. She is employed as a Social Worker at the Council. She has been a social worker for over 20 years and holds a Master of Arts in Social Work. She has been the assigned social worker for the family since she started at the Council in September 2024. She has attended almost all hearings in these proceedings. I have no reason to doubt her qualifications as an expert.
I do not intend to rehearse the majority of the contents of Ms A’s report – it is a matter of record on the court file. Overall, I found the written report to be a thorough and comprehensive analysis of the situation of the family. Indeed, whilst the Respondent does not agree with its outcome, there is no question raised that Ms A has done anything other than undertake her role with diligence and a single-minded focus on the best interests of the girls.
I found Ms A to be a clear and concise witness who took time to answer the question asked of her and did not rush to conclusions when pressed on certain points. She was open and frank about any inconsistencies or areas for improvement in her work. She is a reliable and credible witness and one on whom I can place significant weight on her evidence.
Ms A has had access to the required social care records, educational records, medical records, police records, and the court file. She has met with the girls’ teachers. She has had numerous discussions with the parties themselves and their wider family. Importantly, she has met and observed the girls at school, at their current home with the Applicants, in the community with the Respondent, at overnight stays with the Respondent and her partner and her children in Bristol, and at home with the Respondent and her partner and her children in City A.
As I noted, the report is long and detailed. Its conclusion is to support the Applicants’ request for a special guardianship order. I have read and considered the full report. Its most salient points are as follows:
There are no safeguarding concerns about the Applicants nor the Respondent. Nor are there any concerns about the Respondent’s partner and her children in City A.
There are real concerns that the girls are aware of the ‘conflict’ and difference of opinions between the parties. There is no suggestion that this has been deliberately done, but there is a lack of a joint narrative and working together.
The Respondent explained that she regarded her own childhood with the Applicants as difficult, traumatic and abusive. She alleged that her mother had hit her and her brother by way of physical chastisement. She mentioned allegations of mistreatment concerning her attitude to food and exercise and began self-harming herself. Overall, she alleges that her mother was unsympathetic and harsh to her, with little regard for her feelings and worries. Asked if she worries about the girls and the Second Applicant, the Respondent said she did not think the Second Applicant would physically hit them.
Ms A said there was no information in police or social care records to corroborate these concerns, nor did her conversations with the Respondent’s brother support the concerns either. Overall, she understood and accepted the Respondent felt the way she did, but could not find evidence to corroborate it.
The Respondent has been diagnosed with BPD and EUPD in May 2024, but informed Ms A she believed those diagnoses were wrong and they should be for complex PTSD, autism and ADHD. She takes mirtazapine and is undergoing counselling.
Ms A noted that, despite a challenging and demanding schedule of assessments and observations, the Respondent had fully engaged with the process and attended almost all of them (except some video calls between Ms A and the girls). Ms A noted that the Respondent felt the situation was weighted against her and she considered the Respondent was not as full and frank with information as she could be at times. The Respondent and her partner voiced concerns that they are not listened to, yet believed the Applicants always are.
The girl live in a village on the outskirts of Bristol with the Applicants and this is the only home they have ever known. The girls attended preschool near their current home and are now at primary school very nearby. They go to breakfast and afterschool club three times a week. They have high attendance. They are slightly below the expected standard – but this is expected as they have a July birthday and are working hard to catch up.
The girls have spent time with the Respondent since she left the family home two years’ ago. This has usually been on a Sunday, and they go to the park or to local cafés together. More recently under the interim orders for overnight contact, the Respondent has been able to do more with the girls and taken them on longer days trips both by herself and with her partner for excursions such as cinema, playing at the local fountains and swimming.
The girls spend time with their wider maternal family including their uncle, aunts, cousins and grandparents. They have, as expected with twin sisters, a very close bond between them. For reasons well known, they have no relationship with their paternal family.
Concerning the relationships with the parties, Ms A opined that the girls have strong relationships with both the Applicants and the Respondent. Due to the current living arrangements, the Respondent inevitably has a lesser role in their day to day care and therefore the Applicants provide this the majority of the time.
Ms A notes that the girls have only spent limited time with the Respondent’s partner and her children. This process has begun and will take time before the families are more integrated. Ms A considered that the Respondent’s partner’s children were very welcoming and shared that they wanted the girls to come and live with them.
Ms A undertook her analysis using the welfare checklist. Her opinion was as follows:
Wishes and Feelings
The girls love both their grandparents and their mother and feel conflicted about feeling that they have to choose. They want to see them all. They have, on several occasions, shared they want to live with the Applicants and have said at other times they want the Respondent to live nearby so they can spend time with her (including overnight).
Overall, Ms A says the girls are “unwavering” that they want to stay living with the Applicants. She points out fairly that this is the only natural conclusion they could draw given their lived experiences to date.
Physical, Emotional and Educational Needs
No concerns were noted on physical needs.
The school shared that there has been change and uncertainty for the girls and this has shown in their presentation and wellbeing at school. They exhibit a range of differing emotions, including being excited to being grumpy, tired, and exhausted. This has especially been shown during the change to overnight care with the Respondent, and after observational time with the Respondent in the community after school and in the February half term.
Ms A made educational enquiries of the Respondent’s partner’s children. For one son and daughter there were no concerns. For another son, it was reported he had high needs that were not always well managed. The concern was that introducing two children into a four children household may unsettle him and, in turn, make life more difficult for the girls.
Change of Circumstances
Overall, throughout Ms A’s involvement with the family, the girls maintain a view that they want to live with their grandparents and see their mother. There has never been any change in this.
There has been confusion for the girls over the last couple of years as they have moved to a situation where they see their mother on more regular occasions and in different places. There have been various comments made at school which support the conclusion has been unsettling of the girls.
Ms A notes rightly that there is a strong positive to the girls going to live with their mother in that they can see her every day and she would become their primary carer.
There are concerns that the Respondent has not demonstrated doing the more basic and mundane things involved in childcare. Understandably, the care that she provides during the current interim contact is more limited and of a certain type different from that provided by the Applicants because of the current arrangements.
Significantly, the report has substantial concerns about the emotional support needed to support the girls in the event of a move to City A. In particular, Ms A opines that she is concerned that the girls will be moving from a current situation of being the only children in the house, to a situation where they are two of five children living in a new home. When considering the attitude of the Respondent, her partner, and the support network in City A, Ms A was concerned that the primary motivation appeared to be the need for the girls to be with their mother as a matter of principle, rather than the more holistic question of what was in their best interests.
Ms A was not reassured that their needs were being fully considered alongside the need and capacity to ensure that their global best interests were taken into account. She considers there was a risk that they would not have all their needs met in the environment in City A.
Age, Sex, and Other Characteristics: The girls are identical twins and there are no concerns about their health or general development. They have very different personalities and are very protective of each other. They are very articulate, questioning, and considerate of their immediate environment and the world around them.
Harm or Risk of Harm
Ms A recorded that there has never been any observed or reported significant harm to either of the girls from the Applicants, the Respondent, or anyone else in their networks.
However, she noted that the girls have at times shown and continued to show signs of emotional distress which has been noted by their school, the Applicants, the Respondent, and the wider maternal family.
Ms A’s opinion was clear that there has been confusion for the girls because of the uncertainty in their lives. This has been heightened due to the evolution of the interim contact throughout these proceedings. This has presented as being more challenging at home, more tearful, requiring more reassurance from the Applicants, and for both children seek further reassurance from each other.
Capability of Parties to Meet Needs
Concerning the Applicants, Ms A concurred with the outcome of the special guardianship assessment (undertaken by a different social worker). She found the Applicants to be direct, focused and very child-centred. She considered they wanted what was best for the children and that all the information shared by them with her was accurate. It was noted that there were clearly challenges in the relationship with the Respondent. These were noted to have been long-standing and that Ms A had been unable to achieve much change in this area.
Concerning the Respondent, Ms A concurred with the parenting assessment (again undertaken by a different social worker). She found there were a number of positives and also a number of potential risks simply because her parenting had not been fully tested due to the circumstances. She noted there were many positives in the Respondent’s relationship with her new partner and her family and the stability that provides. However, she noted further that the Respondent had not been open with the Applicants about the change to her new living situation and how this may impact on her relationship with the girls on a practical and everyday level.
Ms A noted that the Respondent had been unable to articulate to her clearly the impact of the girls leaving the Applicants to go and live with her. It was expressed to Ms A that the children should be with the Respondent because she was their mother. Whilst Ms A accepted that it was inevitable that the Respondent’s mental health would be significantly improved if the girls came to live with her, she considered showed a lack of insight as to the real question: what would be in the girls’ best interests?
It was noted that the home in City A consists of the Respondent, her partner, and her three children (another is now an adult), two of whom have EHCPs. Ms A observed that they were largely well-managed, but that at times the behaviour of the two young children had been overwhelming and the girls had been unsure about how to respond to this. However, she accepted that this was the situation with many families and may settle in with time.
It is important to note that Ms A’s opinion was that the Respondent and her partner work well as a team together, that the girls had a great time with the family in City A, and that the Respondent’s partner’s children were credit to her.
It is noted as a further positive that the Respondent has continued to see the girls regularly in Bristol and committed to the long journeys that that entails. She has organised suitable places for them to stay and arranged suitable activities which matched with the court ordered contact.
I have noted the summaries of the conversations of the support networks with Ms A offered up by both parties.
The Court’s Powers
The Court’s powers were reported to be a special guardianship order or no order. As noted elsewhere, this is incorrect.
The analysis of Ms A is detailed and I will note the most relevant sections in my judgment:
It is not the children’s role, however indirectly, to be responsible for the Respondent’s positive and healthy mental health (the Respondent and her partner stated that the Respondent’s mental health will improve if she was to have her girls live with her).
The Respondent’s move to City A was a positive one for her and was clearly very beneficial for her wellbeing. It has not, however, helped the parental relationship and made it easier for the girls.
She would have liked the Respondent to be more proactive in decision-making than was observed. Whilst there were no concerns about the future for the Respondent and her partner, if the relationship were to break down, there will be significant risks for the girls if living in City A. Outside of the relationship with her partner, Ms A opines that the parenting assessment, and her own assessment, are that she will require support and oversight.
Ms A does not consider that the Respondent and her partner have fully considered the size of the undertaking needed to move and fully support the girls in City A alongside the well-established and large household there.
Communication between the parties is difficult and remains so. There is no bad faith to mislead the girls, but they are asking more and more questions and the answers are harder to give without becoming partial.
The girls have been clear throughout with Ms A that they want to live with the Applicants. She considers that changing residence would mean leaving behind their home, friends, current family dynamic against a background where they did not want this to change. This will cause them emotional trauma.
The girls should have regular unsupervised contact with the Respondent, including overnight stays. The report sets out how this should occur.
For these reasons, Ms A considers a special guardianship order should be granted.
Ms A was cross examined on the first day of the hearing by both parties. I turn first to what I regard as the more important features of her oral evidence:
Ms A accepted that she had viewed her task, and framed her report, through the prism of whether or not there should be a special guardianship order or ‘no order’. She conceded (rightly) that had not been legally correct there were other orders, and combinations of orders, available to the Family Court. I consider that this was an error, albeit one motivated in good faith: this case has, for a long period of time, been open with the Council as one for a special guardianship order. The Respondent’s application for a child arrangements order has never been formally made but ‘deemed made’ by an order. It is understandable why the report was framed in the way that it was.
I am satisfied that I can still give considerable weight on the report for three reasons:
First, notwithstanding that the other options were not expressly considered, it still remains the case that the report is a thorough and detailed examination of the circumstances of the family and one which can inform to a substantive degree the final decision which the Court has to make. Ultimately, the decision over which order to make is one for the Court exercising its own independent judgment.
Second, Ms A was able during her oral evidence to consider the points been put to her by the Respondent about the availability of different orders. She opined that the important factors were to have consistency, reliability, and predictability in the arrangements of the girls. In particular, she said that what was needed was a long-term solution decided on by the Court based on what was in their best interests. In this respect, it matters less what label was put on the type of order to be made.
Third, Ms A confirmed that a special guardianship order would still be appropriate and necessary if there were differences of opinion between the parties in how to exercise parental responsibility over the girls. She stated, and I agree completely, that it would be undesirable for the parties to have to return to Court in order to resolve any differences.
However, it remains my decision what order to make, not to rubber stamp a report.
It is, however, important to note here that her oral evidence was that there had never been any resistance to moving the child arrangements forward with the Respondent. She was clear that both parties, in the time that she has been involved with the family, have always acted protectively towards the girls, been child focused, and considered their best interests. In particular, Ms A said it was her view that the Applicants have been very clear about the importance of the role of the Respondent is the girls’ mother in their lives and the necessity of them having a good relationship with her.
Ms A was asked to comment on the Respondent’s view that the significant changes on the stability and routine of the girls could be effectively managed in the event of a move to City A. She maintained that she still had several concerns as per those set out in the report. She reminded the Court that the Respondent has been through several cycles in her mental health, that the girls would have no support network in the City A area (initially at least), and that the Respondent’s partner’s household was a loving one but a busy one with children who have their own challenges and needs. She referred to the girls’ own wishes and feelings that they wanted to stay living where they currently live and go to school at their current school. Ms A said these were important views the girls held and that they had always expressed them very eloquently to her.
Ms A was asked also about whether she had effectively challenged the Applicants about the views held by the Respondent about them. The Respondent was concerned that the section 7 report did not accurately reflect the order of District Judge Brown (which commissioned it) and which had made clear that one of the factors to be addressed was this point. The Respondent is concerned that the deficiencies that she says she experienced in her upbringing would be replicated with the girls.
Ms A accepted that this had been an oversight in the drafting of the report when setting out the terms of the order which directed it. However, in her oral evidence she was clear and consistent that she had challenged the Applicants on a number of occasions about the views held by the Respondent and, in particular, the concerns that she had about their parenting of her. Her ultimate conclusion was that, while she understood how the Respondent felt about her upbringing and her relationship with her own mother, she could find no evidence to corroborate the assertions that the Respondent makes. Therefore, whilst Ms A was satisfied that she had put these points to the Applicants, and accepted in retrospect she could set out in more detail her conclusions in this area, she did not feel that on an independent and objective basis there were grounds to have concerns in this direction.
Concerning other aspects of her oral evidence:
Ms A was clear that the Respondent had, in the time that she has been working with her, always followed the advice of professionals and fully co-operated with medical and social services. She was fully supportive of the Respondent undertaking therapy.
She said it would be concerning if the narrative presented by the Respondent about her mental health had changed over time and was not borne out by the medical records. She accepted that some of narrative presented in the records might have been skewed in the earlier years because the Respondent felt she was unable to be open and frank with professionals.
Accepting she was not a medical professional, she said that from a social care perspective she would want to see a long period of sustained improvement (around a year) in the Respondent’s mental health in order to mitigate the historic concerns in that direction.
There were concerns about the support networks used by the Respondent i.e. whether some had historically been appropriate (Family K), and whether newer friends and family in City A fully understood the entire picture involving the girls and the Respondent’s health challenges.
She had no real concerns about the ancillary arrangements being proposed by the parties (dependent on the main decision). She emphasised that it must be age appropriate and the girls should be feel overwhelmed, particularly if returning to Bristol from City A just before school the next day.
Evidence of the First Applicant
The First Applicant (the Respondent’s father) gave oral evidence. He was a straightforward witness who kept to the point and did not seek to embellish or amplify his point of view unnecessarily. On occasion he did not understand the question being put to him, but it was always re-put in a way he could better deal with. He relied at times, and framed his view of the case, based on the advice of the professionals.
He was very focussed on the best interests of the girls and my reading of his evidence (particularly in messages) is that he communicates in a very matter of fact way with the Respondent. I am satisfied this is motivated by a need to focus on what matters in the child arrangements and to keep things simple, but it has contributed to a difficult relationship with the Respondent because she perceives that the communications are across as cold and unsympathetic to her point of view.
Overall, I consider the First Appellant to be a reliable and credible witness.
The First Applicant adopted a number of witness statements. From those, I note as follows:
The First Applicant set out in some detail the history of the cycles of the Respondent disappearing without any warning, reappearing without warning and moving around the country staying with different people.
In Spring 2023, the Respondent left the twins in the care of the Applicants and left without any warning.
The First Applicant explained that the family were working through the Early Help Assessment and Plan (“EHAP”) process towards the goal of transitioning the girls into the Respondent’s care. This was premised around the Respondent obtaining accommodation locally (which did not eventuate when she moved to City A).
A number of messages between the First Applicant’s sister and the Respondent were adduced. The tone of these was supportive and friendly. There are also a number of messages between the First Applicant and the Respondent. These were supportive and open as well as being straightforward and to the point. There is nothing inappropriate, derogatory or insensitive in the content of the messages.
The Respondent had said in one of her witness statements that the school was concerned of things the girls had been saying and it was arranging therapy. The First Applicant has adduced an email from the Assistant Head of the school confirming that no such comments had been made to the staff and would have been recorded and shared widely if made. The Assistant Head did confirm the girls were having ‘Bubble Time’ support.
Earlier in the proceedings when interim contact was being decided, the First Applicant stated in evidence “Overnight contact is not needed for the Respondent to do any of her proposed activities”. This is a classic example of the different communication styles I referred to earlier. I am sure the First Applicant was referring in a practical way to whether or not overnight contact was needed for the Respondent to undertaken activities as part of the section 7 report. But the way it came across to the Respondent, and indeed to me reading it objectively in the wider context, is that it misses the point that perhaps the Respondent just wanted to have time with the girls as a mother and does not need to justify particular activities with them all the time. Indeed, when cross-examined on this point, he accepted it had come across wrong and he had not intended to object to the principle of overnights.
The First Applicant was cross-examined at length. From his oral evidence I note as follows:
He had not met nor talked to the Respondent’s partner.
Asked about what sharing parental responsibility looked like for him, the First Applicant referred back to the original plan under the EHAP in supporting the Respondent with her housing and health needs and to develop more and more time and care for the girls. He agreed that sharing parental responsibility was important, but said that joint decision making can be difficult and the ‘finality’ of a special guardianship order would provide certainty. He agreed there was no time over the last two and half years where the Respondent disrupted the care of the girls or prevented a decision being made.
The First Applicant said he and his wife were concerned that a recent discussion via WhatsApp with the Respondent about additional time in the week had gone no further until a solicitor’s letter came. He considered that he and the Second Applicant had asked valid and important questions about the arrangement and never received a response. This, to him, was an example of the difficulties in communication.
Challenged about why a special guardianship order was needed (as opposed to a ‘lives with’ order), he said: “Looking at the history of this process, we did not start it, it was recommended to us to apply for a SGO, it was our belief it would be the best for the girls to make decisions when required without some of the difficulties in communication.” He reflected fairly that they had not considered whether a ‘lives with’ order would be an appropriate outcome because the special guardianship order had always been the local authority recommendation to them.
Asked if he agreed that obstacles were put in the way of the Respondent developing her relationship with children, he disagreed. He stated it was a two-way conversation and he and his wife do not receive answers to their questions on the WhatsApp group which makes it harder to work effectively together.
He confirmed that the girls do not maintain a constant position or express repeated comments that they know the parties do not get on. He said he did not know where such understandings on their part came from, but he said it was not a running feature.
He confirmed that, as the girls grow up, he and his wife would be guided by professional opinion as well as their understanding of what the girls are capable of in terms of contact with the Respondent.
Evidence of the Second Applicant
The Second Applicant (the Respondent’s mother) gave evidence. My overall impression, like her husband, was that she was an open and straightforward witness who was focussed on what was best for the girls. She was evidently hurt and concerned by the Respondent’s views of her parenting and is perplexed by the historic accusations levelled in some of the documents. I consider her to be a reliable and credible witness.
In her witness statements, she set out the challenges of her relationship with the Respondent. She had supported the Respondent seeking medical attention and found being excluded from her treatment (at the Respondent’s request), and then criticised by the medical professionals, as confusing and upsetting. She summed up her relationship with the Respondent in earlier years as follows: “My relationship with [the Respondent] could be fraught at the time, but this would be up and down with [the Respondent] hating me one minute and wanting me all the time.”
The Second Applicant gave oral evidence, and I note the following from her evidence:
She confirmed that she supported the evidence and views of the First Applicant.
Asked why she sought a special guardianship order she said: “It comes down to transience, she [the Respondent] has a history of moving without telling us, her mental health is cyclical, communication – historically it can be difficult – lack of response has been a default. That would concern us for the girls’ welfare. For that reason, a SGO would be a stability to build.”. Later she said that such an order would address the gaps in the Respondent’s history and provide stability for the girls so that they were stable and secure. In particular, the Second Applicant referred to the fact the Respondent never told her parents she was pregnant and that they only found out when social services contacted them during the later stages of the pregnancy. She did not want to be in that situation again.
She said that the criticisms levelled by the Respondent at her parenting were unfair, not the truth, nor what happened. She considered she had tried to help either becoming actively involved or standing back as appropriate. She had taken her to mental health appointments, done clearing up after acts of self-harm, and if the Respondent was in crisis she would reach out to her.
She confirmed she had never met the Respondent’s partner or talked to her.
She confirmed that she had no safeguarding concerns about the Respondent and had no reason to dispute Ms A’s assessment of her mental health as currently stable.
Asked about the Respondent’s perception that being granted a special guardianship order would mean she would be sidelined, the Second Applicant said that is not how it is. She agreed it would be hurtful to hear that someone perceived they were being sidelined and that it should cause her husband and her to make sure they were doing the right thing and how. She felt they were trying to share parenting but there is an issue with communication, and it was a ‘work in progress’. She and her husband wanted an inclusive decision-making environment, but it is not about egos, it is about practicalities.
She was asked if the girls perceive her relationship with the Respondent as being difficult. She replied: “I have never talked about it to them, but they are very observant. I have never talked about [the Respondent] in front of them, we have amicable conversations when we handover, it is nothing I have ever knowingly said or done. They need to see their adults and trusted people working together.”
Evidence of the Respondent’s Partner
The Respondent’s partner gave evidence and made the journey from City A to Bristol to do so. The Court is grateful for her attendance. She was evidently a loyal and committed partner and came across clearly as a rock in the Respondent’s world. I have no doubt the improvement in the Respondent’s mental health is significantly down to the stability and love she provides. She held a very steadfast and clear view that the Respondent’s children should be back with the Respondent because she was their mother. My judgment is that it is through this principled prism that she views all aspects of the case.
In her witness statement she confirmed that she and the Respondent were in a stable and committed relationship. She says the Respondent is a great support with her own children and her entire family would welcome the girls becoming part of it.
In oral evidence, she confirmed that the Respondent has explained her childhood, parenting, upbringing to her and she considered that the Respondent had been open and honest with her. She understood the family dynamic at home has been very difficult and this has meant the Respondent had to leave the family home and ended up in abusive relationship.
She does not consider that the Respondent currently has any mental health issues. She is well maintained on her medication and the only ‘down’ she suffers is the understandable sadness of not being with her girls all the time and leaving them at the end of contact. This was attributed, in part, to her parents ‘dragging’ her through court which is making it worse.
Her partner held a firm view that the Respondent’s parents should not be putting her through this process. She said “Putting their own child through all of this would be upsetting” and asked “How could it get to this point?”.
She disagreed that the Respondent had not tried to find somewhere local to Bristol to live, but in the end it had been too difficult financially to find somewhere and so they had made the decision to move in together, make a family, and make a plan to have the girls be with them. She considered that every decision the Respondent had made was in the girls’ best interests and denied there had been any plan (that she was aware of) with social services for the Respondent to be re-integrated with her children before she decided to move to City A.
Evidence of the Respondent
The Respondent gave evidence last and with the benefit of hearing all other points of view. It was agreed by all parties with the Court at the start of the hearing that if the Respondent wished to discuss her medical history in depth, or the more difficult parts of her past, she only had to indicate so and the Applicants agreed to step outside the hearing and leaving their Counsel present. The Respondent did not need to avail herself of this option, but a number of breaks were taken to allow the Respondent to proceed at a pace suited to her.
I found the Respondent to be thoughtful, considered, and showed insight into the challenges she had faced in her past. I know she was concerned that she wanted to give her best evidence on such an important matter and I reassure her, as I did at the end of the hearing, that she put across her points clearly and calmly and I am not left in any doubt about what she thinks is right for the girls. As with the others, she was open and frank with her evidence. I found there are some inconsistencies in her evidence (which I address below) but none which give rise to wider concern about her credibility.
The Respondent’s written evidence supported her position that the girls should be returned to her care. She said that the house in City A was large enough for them to live in and believes they would be a happy family together there.
The Respondent said that, from a young age of the girls, the Applicants had threatened to apply for a special guardianship order. I find that inconsistent with the evidence of the Applicants that they had only applied for the order on the recommendation of the local authority, and my general impression of them at the hearing that they were unaware of the legal options available.
Concerning the messages with the First Applicant, as I note elsewhere, the messages are matter of fact and to the point. I can see, from the Respondent’s point of view, that they can be perceived to lack empathy and a willingness to co-operate fully. However, it is also the case that when a difference of opinion arises (such as it did about the observations to be undertaken with Ms A), the Respondent did not propose a way forward either or attempt to work at the problem. At the hearing, she explained she found confrontation intimidating and felt she was always on the back foot. With respect, that is taking the situation too far and ascribing a level of confrontation to the messages which did not exist.
Finally in the written evidence, I note in her final statement the Respondent disagrees with Ms A’s opinion that the Respondent had not considered the effect of the change of circumstances on the girls. She says that she has and, to support this, says that she has arranged their new school, doctor, dentist and other community activities. That is positive, but it equally did not recognise in writing any insight or concern about the undoubted emotional change of circumstances that the girls will experience if moved from the only home they have known and their grandparents.
The Respondent gave oral evidence and was cross-examined. From her evidence, I note as follows:
She does not speak to Family K as often and conversations are said to be “few and far between”. She explained that the change is due to having difficult conversations with them and the Respondent reflecting on what advice they have given her in the past. She concluded that she did not want to spend much time with them, so she does not. She agreed that the girls should not spend time with them and would consent to a prohibited steps order to that effect.
The Respondent was asked for her views on the messaging between the parties. She said: “When sending I was trying to open some kind of conversation and I have put in what I was asking for and try to go about it the best way I saw fit for that. I struggled with response as it is very business like and comes across in the worse way. Yes, I have gone to my solicitor for advice and she has told me not to respond in the moment. I know now reading through them the last few days it is not intended in how I have perceived it.”
Concerning her health, she confirmed she took 15mg of mirtazapine every night and is still seeing her private counsellor every week (as she has done for 18 months). She had undertaken a course of CBT but noted they only run for a limited period of time. She considered she got everything she needed out of speaking to her counsellor and she sees the same GP every 4 - 6 weeks who is very happy with where she is with her medication.
Concerning the role of the Applicants in the lives of the girls, the Respondent said they are very involved grandparents. She maintains that all the way through the proceedings her position has been if the girls were with her she would make whatever work with the Applicants. She accepted their relationship with the girls is more than most children have with their grandparents.
She accepted that she had made no criticism of the Applicants’ parenting of her until she has become an adult. Put to her that a number of the current disagreements are linked to her perception of the Second Applicant, she said: “I have accepted to the social workers that I have made poor life decisions. My own counsellor is not easy on me. I do not think I would have ended up in this situation if there had been different decisions. I am not saying I had a bad childhood. I am still processing what I have been through and still coming to terms with my mental health. It is not cut and dried. I accept have a lot of work to do.”
Asked about the girls’ wishes and feelings, she noted that the girls give the views based on the context of the situation they are in at the time. For example, if they are asked the question while spending time with their mother on a weekend, they will say that they want to spend more time with her. Equally, if they are asked during the week when they are living with their grandparents, they will say they want to spend more time with them. The Respondent made the very fair point that they are young and there can be no logic to what they say sometimes.
The Respondent was asked a series of questions about her mental health (which focused on its current resilience) and the Applicants’ concern was put to her that it may be better but this has not been tested for a substantial period of time. The Respondent was clear that her health is better and she has been through a lot worse. She considered she had the support around her to help her with the next phase of her motherhood. Overall, she considered that having the girls with her would not add to her stress as the only stress she felt was not having them with her. She then asked the Court why was everyone assuming she would not cope? When it was put to her by Counsel in response that the children would be the ones impacted by a future decline in her mental health, the Respondent declined to answer further.
I asked the Respondent, given the evidence from her partner the previous day, how would her partner cope and react to an ‘unfavourable’ decision? The Respondent felt she would be angry but she would get over it. She said she has told her partner on occasions as well to just get over it.
The Respondent did not accept that her move to City A has made relations with the children harder. She denies putting her own relationship ahead of the children’s interests. She was asked how they had benefited from it and she said “It does not impact them”. Challenged about this position, she said that she would prioritise the girls over her partner and move back to the Bristol area if she was able to afford to do so. She admitted she had made no concrete attempts recently to do so.
The Respondent believed that moving the girls into the family home in City A would be beneficial. She accepted they would form part of a much larger household, but said her partner’s children often spent time at their fathers or wider family.
The Respondent accepted the girls were settled at school with friendship groups and extracurricular activities. She said that their friends would not be lost as they could still see them on video calls. She believed that a lot of the elements of their daily routine would still take place in City A. As she put it: “It is like cooking the same meal but in a different kitchen”. She conceded that the Applicants’ proposal involved only a small amount of change for the girls and she could see the difference with her application, but when asked to consider that one way was tested and the other was not, she asked back how else were we going to find out?
OTHER EVIDENCE
I turn to the other evidence available to the Court which I consider to be the most relevant.
Special Guardianship Assessment
The Council undertook a special guardianship assessment in January 2024. I bear heavily in mind that the focus on the assessment is to ascertain, in the context of a private law application, whether or not it is appropriate for the Court to grant a special guardianship order and whether the Applicants are suitable people to be special guardians. The function of the assessment is not to consider the other alternatives which may be open to the Court.
The assessment is supportive and positive of the Applicants being suitable to be appointed special guardians. I will not rehearse the detail of the report here because, in fairness, the Respondent does not submit her parents are unsuitable. It is just she disagrees that a special guardianship order is the right outcome.
In coming to its positive conclusion, the assessment notes as follows:
Concerning the strengths of the Applicants as special guardians, the assessment notes that the Applicants were prepared to support whatever outcome the assessment reached as being in the best interests of the girls. It is noted that there was a strong family bond between the Applicants and the girls and, because of the current living situation, they are likely to see the Applicants as their primary carers. It is noted that there was a robust support network, a willingness on the part of the Applicants to support the girls as they grew up, and that overall the Applicants presented as a stable and secure home environment.
Concerning the vulnerabilities in the application, the assessment noted that there were strained relationships between the Applicants and the Respondent. It noted that all parties lacked effective communication skills. The assessor was concerned that this would impact on the girls’ relationship the Respondent in the future. At the time of the assessment, the Respondent had only recently put forward her plan to move the girls to having the weekends with her. The assessor commented as follows on that prospect:
“In my professional view, moving the girls on such short notice without enough planning and transition support for the twins to understand their move will be detrimental to their welfare and make them feel insecure and unsettled in the home environment and the community at large.”
Concerning the question of contact if the application was granted, the report was concerned with the inflexibility of family time which was impacting on the Respondent’s relationship with her daughters. It noted that the Applicants were encouraged to increase communication with the Respondent so that there were so that there were no unnecessary conflicts in the future.
In particular, the report noted that the Applicants understood they would have to care for the children until they are 18 years’ old and they would be sharing parental responsibility with the Respondent but could make nearly all decisions for them about asking for permission. The Applicants have said that by applying for a special guardianship order they would be able to give the girls the stability and security that they need.
The overall recommendation of the assessment was that there should be a special guardianship order in favour of the Applicants would provide the girls with permanence and stability whilst also allowing them to maintain a relationship with the Respondent. It did note that such an order would not remove the parental responsibility of the Respondent and it was only the case of conflict that the Applicant’ views will take precedence.
An addendum special guardianship assessment was completed in July 2025 (post section 7 report) and remains supportive of the original assessment. In particular, it contains an interview with the Respondent’s brother who did not share any concerns about his own childhood with the Applicants.
Parenting Assessment of the Respondent
The Respondent undertook a focussed parenting assessment in October 2024. The purpose of the assessment was to identify whether the Respondent could care for the girls given the social care history, her wishes and feelings, and because it was not something that the Applicants supported.
The assessment explains that throughout 2023 all parties were working on EHAP which would help the Respondent in her support of the girls. In particular, the Respondent had shared her worries through the EHAP that she wanted have more communication of the girls, have clear timescales about the various steps, and clarity on the situation concerning parental responsibility. The assessment explained the various steps that have been taken on that plan as of the date of its writing.
The assessment noted as follows:
Family/environmental factors: At that time, the Respondent had very little contact with her family on her mother or father’s side.
Social integration: The Respondent explained the support networks that she had both in the Bristol area, and in the City A area. It noted that the Respondent was proud of the support network that she had built and that she felt they offered her a genuine support and guidance. However, it was also recorded that details of the support network were unknown to her parents and they had not met any of its members.
Housing: At the time, the Respondent was living with Family K. It was recorded that she intended to claim housing benefit, and that she was currently looking for private rented accommodation in areas around Bristol where the rent would be cheaper. It was noted she had never lived on her own before and, therefore, the life experience of living independently, paying bills, navigating all the various processes and different businesses was untested and therefore formed a potential risk.
Finances: It was noted that the Respondent was unemployed and currently receiving universal credit and PIP. It noted further that there was a potential risk because the Respondent had never had to pay the bills for items such as groceries and supplies for the girls.
Previous relationships: I will not rehearse the difficult and traumatic history which the Respondent has had with the former partners. They are a matter of record in the evidence and not in dispute.
Criminal records/drug use: It was noted that the Respondent does not have a criminal record. She accepted that she had smoked cannabis from the age of 16 and that a high level until she found out that she was pregnant. She said that she had not used the substance since. She admitted also to using other controlled substances such as MDMA, cocaine and mushrooms before she had the girls. She said the use of these substances was not regular.
Concerning the wishes and feelings of the girls: I will not rehearse in detail the comments in this assessment because more recent and relevant evidence is in the special guardianship assessment. Indeed, a number of the concerns about what the girls understood about the difficult family dynamics and the living situation are replicated in this assessment. The assessment opined:
“[The girls] live with [the Applicants]. They are their main carers and are able to meet their needs effectively. Were [the girls] to move from [the Applicants] to be cared for by their mother this would be a significant change in their lives. This may be unsettling for them and they may find it difficult to regulate their emotions. They would need a sensitive and attuned carer to understand and to support around this.”
Concerning parenting capacity, the assessment noted:
The Respondent has shown insight around the girls’ feelings and how she wants them to have a positive childhood. This was noted to be evidenced by the fact that the Respondent had always followed the social care recommendations since leaving the family home and with the directions of her parents who had day-to-day care of the children. It was noted in particular that the Respondent had worked well with all professionals since leaving her abusive relationship five years ago, and wanted to get the girls back in her care ‘the right way’ and in the most supportive way.
There were unintended difficulties about liaison over matters such as mealtimes and food because of the difficulties of communication between the Applicants and the Respondent.
The Respondent’s perspective was that she thought a lot of things would be easier once the girls were in her care. The Respondent found it more difficult to do things just for herself and she knows the girls will keep her busy and there would be “less time to sit with her own brain”. She described the current situation concerning the girls as being “in a weird waiting room” and “for a while felt like stages of grief”.
Concerning the Respondent’s mental health, it noted the progress of her health to the date of the report and that she now had a diagnosis of borderline personality disorder. Some concerns were expressed that her medication (which was new at that time and was the first one that she had taken which supported her condition) acted like a sedative and made it difficult for her to wake up sometimes. I note this concern was expressed at a time when overnight contacts were yet not occurring.
The Respondent was insightful and reflected on her previous behaviours, where they had come from, and how she wanted to keep progressing and developing in her responses. In particular, she said that she knew she was not a perfect parent (which of course no one is) but she wanted the opportunity to be one to the girls. The report author found no concerns or worries about her current state and that she was able to maintain at that time a positive progress.
In its final analysis, the assessment queried whether the Respondent’s view that she could have kept the girls when she left the family home in April 2023 was really correct and realistic. The report writer noted that it was the Respondent herself who had informed him that her memory could be unclear during times of high stress. He noted that the Respondent may be minimising her current worries around her mental health.
The assessment was worried about the relationship between the Applicants and the Respondent at that time. The motivation for this was, in the report writer’s opinion, because of the messaging that the Respondent had received from social services about the fact that the children may be taken away from her.
On the positive side, the assessment noted that the Respondent followed all advice and guidance from professionals throughout the girls’ lives, had accessed the appropriate support services, and that the Applicant had raised no worries about the Respondent’s care of the girls since March 2024. No safeguarding concerns were raised.
The assessment concluded that, given the Respondent’s current presentation and the insight and changes that she had made her life, it was not considered that the girls would be at risk of significant harm were they to enter into their mother’s care, though they would be vulnerable and in need to be in receipt of services (which was accepted the Respondent was open to doing). In the time that the report writer had worked with the Respondent from April to October 2024, there are no worries about her mental health presentation over that period of time.
Child in Need Review
The various Child in Need documents state:
The review documents followed a series of reviews at which the Applicants and the Respondent attended (albeit separately).
The Applicants held a clear view that they were an important safeguarding feature for the girls and they feel they have a large degree of responsibility for any risks that they may encounter. They did not believe that the Respondent appropriately shared their concerns or understood them.
The Respondent, in turn, felt that there was no trust in her judgment about what was right as a parent. She felt that she was only a small part of the girls’ world and wanted to be part of their upbringing, whether that be the good parts or the more difficult parts.
The difficulties in communication were clearly noted. The Respondent maintained that she wished to have separate meetings without the Applicants being there because making these difficult decisions with her parents in the same room had been detrimental to their relationship. The Applicants said that this was a frustrating approach and meant it was very hard to make decisions together.
It was reported that the Respondent needed to start exploring her housing options. This was stated on several occasions.
Medical Records
Further to orders made, the Respondent’s full medical records have been made available to the legal professionals involved in this case and to the Court. I have not permitted the Applicants themselves to see the records and their solicitors were authorised to take instructions based on the ‘gist’ of what is in them.
It is not necessary, and indeed inappropriate, set out a detailed review of the medical records. I record here that the medical records that the Court has reviewed also reviewed by Ms A when writing the section 7 report.
What the records do show is that the Respondent has suffered for a significant number of years with poor mental health which has led to a number of difficult conditions.
The most relevant and salient features of the records are as follows:
First, it is clear there are a number of very different factors which have led to the Respondent’s mental health issues. Some of those factors are traumatic, distressing, and not linked to her upbringing by the Applicants. I consider it is fully understandable why the Respondent has faced significant challenges.
Second, it is correct that mentions by the Respondent of the concerns of her upbringing only occurred in later and more recent years. In particular, I note that a number of the concerns were recorded following the birth of the girls and the difficult family dynamic which followed. However, I note further that the concerns about the parenting Respondent was brought up in were generic and often repeated only one or two specific incidents over the years of speaking to the medical professionals.
Third, I note that on several occasions the Respondent denied using drugs when speaking with her doctors. That is heavily inconsistent with what she has told the Council in its parenting assessment.
The Respondent did not wish to disclose the full medical records to the Court. For the reasons I gave in my judgment at the time, I disagreed with this position and so she has had to hand them over under compulsion. I accept that this was a difficult, and no doubt distressing, development for the Respondent.
I wish to reassure her that, overall, I consider my decision to do so has been to her benefit. The disclosure of the medical records has allowed me to corroborate with independent and objective medical evidence the positive and beneficial improvements in her mental health that she has asserted in her own evidence. It has, as I will come onto, allowed me to proceed with my decision against the background of the Respondent being in a significantly improved mental health position and one which gives the Court fewer reasons for concern than would otherwise have been the case if I had not had access to her records.
WELFARE ANALYSIS
I turn then to consider my welfare analysis of the options available. The options are as follows:
Special Guardianship Order (Bristol) with ‘spends time’ with the Respondent.
‘Lives With’ in favour of the Applicants (Bristol) with ‘spends time’ with the Respondent.
‘Lives With’ in favour of the Respondent (City A) with ‘spends time’ with the Applicants.
I will start with some general conclusions that permeate the whole analysis.
The Court could make ‘no order’. That would plainly not be in the girls’ best interests as the parties are at odds over what the best outcome should be. The effect of ‘no order’ would be to terminate the parental responsibility of the Applicants (held under an interim ‘lives with’ order) and effectively mean a move to City A. It would essentially be the same as the third option above (as the Respondent accepts the girls should spend time with the Applicants). No party pressed me for this option and so I will not consider it further.
The question of the Respondent’s mental health is a running theme. I record as a general conclusion that the evidence shows the Respondent’s mental health is significantly improved and appears to be stable. It is not without its challenges, however, I am satisfied that these are being appropriately managed by the Respondent herself and by the various support services with which she is now fully engaged. I accept the Applicants have a concern that this welcome improvement in her mental health has not been tested in the medium to long term. Looking across the entirety of the Respondent’s medical records, and the lay evidence concerning the fluctuations in her health, I am satisfied the Respondent is now in a longer-term period of stability and the risk of a relapse is reduced.
Communications are not easy and the three days of the hearing have allowed the parties to confront the reality of how they are perceived by each other. I have agreed with the Respondent that the Applicants’ messaging can be cold and business like. Equally, the Respondent displays behaviours which do not help – she was unwilling to have joint social care meetings which would have allow for a freer flow of discussion and ideas, and she has not always tried to progress matters proactively. No order I can make can change how people talk to each other and, as I observed at the end of the hearing, it is for the parties to have a significant shift in their attitudes and show some empathy with the other side.
Special Guardianship Order (Bristol)
I turn then to consider the welfare analysis of the special guardianship order. I do so first as this was the first application made to the Court (no other reason):
Wishes and Feelings:
The consistently expressed wishes and feelings of the girls is to remain living with the Applicants and spend time with the Respondent. The Applicants has been the only home they have known and so it is logical and expected they want to remain living there in the world they currently know of school, friendships, and the wider maternal family.
This option presents a high likelihood the girls will feel now, and in future years, that their wishes and feelings were taken into account. I agree with the Respondent’s evidence that they are only young, this would be what they would say, and they do not have the emotional maturity yet to fully envisage what a move would be like. Their views must be seen from this perspective. The girls have not expressed any view about the legal status of a special guardianship order (nor would the Court expect them to).
Physical, Emotional and Educational Needs: It is not in dispute the girls physical and educational needs would be met (as they are at present). Their emotional needs would be met in so far as they have a close bond with the Applicants and rely on them for their day-to-day care. However, this would not promote as well their emotional relationship with the Respondent as she would not be responsible for their day to day care and be a lesser presence in their lives if she remained living in City A. The section 7 report and the special guardianship assessment weigh heavily in favour of this option meeting the needs of the girls.
Change of Circumstances: There would be little change of circumstances under this option. The girls would enter into a more established routine of seeing the Respondent (which would be beneficial), but would remain living in their current home and stay at the same school. The stability and avoidance of upheaval would be of benefit to the girls.
Age, Sex and Background: The girls are twins and close sisters so it is important they remain together (as they would in this option). Otherwise, these are neutral factors in this analysis.
Harm or Risk of Harm:
It is accepted by all parties that there have been, and will be, no risk of harm in respect of day-to-day care and safeguarding under this scenario. The special guardianship assessment is positive for the Applicants, and the parenting assessment of the Respondent raises no concerns of the girls spending more established time with her.
On one level, the risk of emotional harm will be reduced because there will be one party (the Applicants) who have overriding parental responsibility. As opposed to now, there would be a finality in decision making and this would promote stability and certainty for the girls.
However, at a different level there is a risk of emotional harm if the parties continue to struggle with their communications and cannot agree over future arrangements. Under this arrangement, whatever the rights or wrongs of the specific situation, the girls may perceive that the Applicants are ‘right’ as against the Respondent due to their overriding parental responsibility. Such a scenario would damage their relationship with their mother and be emotionally harmful. This may be more so if the overriding parental responsibility is used inappropriately. I am also not convinced the Applicants have given proper consideration as to why a special guardianship order is really needed over the less draconian ‘lives with’ order. There is good reason for this viz this was the recommended way forward by the local authority. But that does not mean the alternative has been properly considered by those it would affect most.
Parental Capability: As noted above, both parties have parenting assessments carried out of them. The assessment of the Respondent is more cautious and guarded but, in this scenario, the Applicants would continue as the day to day carers during the school term and care should be shared during the holidays. There is no issue with their capability to to do so. There is a risk that, as the Respondent puts it, she feels marginalised from decision making and involvement and over time this impacts her health and so capability to parent. I am fortified and encouraged by the fact the Respondent has made the current interim contact work (even at distance), but I accept the inevitability of her perspective which is that crystallising this into a long-term situation would be negative for her.
Range of Orders: Under this scenario, all parties would retain their parental responsibility, but the Applicants would be able to override the Respondent’s. If exercised appropriately, this would be a protective and safe feature for the girls and, on the flip side, if exercised inappropriately would be harmful. The Respondent would be guaranteed time with the girls and have the consistency of court order time. There would be a substantial interference with the Respondent’s Article 8 rights and the Court would need to be satisfied that this was proportionate and justified.
‘Lives With’ Order in favour of Applicant (Bristol)
Under this scenario, the girls would live with the Applicants and spend time with the Respondent. All parties would hold equal parental responsibility.
Most of the factors identified above in the special guardianship scenario are the same in this analysis – I will not repeat them. The principal difference would be the effect of the parties have equal parental responsibility without one being able to override the other. This applies to three sections of the checklist:
Harm or Risk of Harm:
As noted above, it is accepted by all parties that there have been, and will be, no risk of harm in respect of day to day care and safeguarding under this scenario. The special guardianship assessment is positive for the Applicants, and the parenting assessment of the Respondent raises no concerns of the girls spending more established time with her.
There will be no one party with overriding parental responsibility. This will mean the parties need to co-operate closely and more effectively than may have been the case to date. If successful, this will substantially reduce any risk of emotional harm to the girls because all the adults in their lives will be working better together. The girls would have greater confidence in the adults that they can rely on them.
However, as noted above, there is a risk of emotional harm if the parties continue to struggle with their communications and cannot agree over future arrangements and, in this scenario, the routes out of an impasse are reduced. Either one party ‘gives in’ to the other (making them feel marginalised), the parties need to return to court to decide the matter (re-exposing the girls to litigation), or one party makes a unilateral exercise of parental responsibility (which would be indicative of a serious breakdown in relations and the need for court resolution).
Parental Capability: I repeat my analysis under this factor above. However, there would be the positive difference that there is less risk the Respondent would feel marginalised in decision making and an equal partner in the bigger parenting decisions. I accept that on a day to day level, there would still be an imbalance due to the girls living the majority of the time with the Applicants. This may still, over time, reduce the capability of the Respondent as previously noted.
Range of Orders: Under this scenario, there would be the certainty that the girls live with the Applicants have court ordered to time with the Respondent. The making of a ‘lives with’ order in favour of the Applicants could be seen to be a more proportionate interference with the Respondent’s Article 8 rights.
‘Lives With’ Order in favour of Respondent (City A)
Under this scenario, the girls would ‘live with’ the Respondent at her partner’s property and have an order ensuring they ‘spent time with’ the Applicants.
Wishes and Feelings: This option would go against the expressed wishes of the girls. They would, in the short term at least and probably the medium term, feel that their wishes had not been listened to. This would distress them. In the longer term, they would likely come to understand that they had to move the distance to be with their mother and I bear in mind they are young. However, this scenario would also not respect their wishes to be close to the Applicants with whom they have a very close emotional attachment. That aspect would not ameliorate over time.
Physical, Emotional and Educational Needs:
The girls’ physical needs will be met in this scenario, albeit they would be part of a much larger household. I was not persuaded by the Respondent’s views that she would be able to focus her attention solely on them. The evidence of her, and her partner, was that she had formed the important part of the larger family up in City A. It is a reasonable inference to draw based upon the evidence I have heard that the girls would need to fit into the wider family.
This will, of course, come with positive and negative consequences. It would be positive that the girls had other children in their home interact and play with. But it would be less to their advantage that they have moved from the situation where they were the only children in the household with a sole call on the time of those look after them, to a much bigger household where they would need to fit in more and cope with the new environment.
The question of the impact on their emotional needs is, in my judgment, a balanced and nuanced one. There would be a much improved relationship with the Respondent, and I have no doubt having heard the evidence, that having the girls living with her would be a considerable fortification of her mental health, and therefore her ability to meet the needs of the girls would be reinforced. However, there are risks and these are not insignificant. The girls have been heavily reliant on the care of the Applicants for a number of years. That reassurance will be removed as the Respondent will be having to catch up with understanding and catering for their emotional needs. The safety net of the Applicants would be removed.
Concerning the educational needs, there is no evidence that these cannot be catered for adequately in City A.
Change of Circumstances:
This scenario presents the biggest change of circumstances for the girls. They will be leaving the home where they have grown up to date, their school, their friendship groups, and the wider maternal family whom they see on a regular basis.
I am not persuaded, having read the written evidence and listened very carefully to the oral evidence, that the Respondent has demonstrated an appropriate understanding of this important factor. As I noted in my review of the evidence above, any discussion or consideration of the change of circumstances for the girls by her has been rooted in the practicalities only. It emerged more evidently in the hearing that the change of circumstances is partly justified on the Respondent’s side by the principle that the girls should be living with their mother no matter what. It was concerning to hear this point of view supported by the Respondent’s partner when she said that the girls should be living with their mother because of what the Applicants had ‘put her through’. Whilst this perspective is understandable, and in no way do I criticise it on a human level, it is not in keeping the principle that the best interests of the girls are the paramount and only consideration for the Family Court.
In summary, I harbour a significant concern that the proposed change of circumstances in this scenario is justified by the Respondent on the basis of her perception of her own parenting and the need to undo the situation which has led to the girls living where they currently are. This is, in my judgment, a significant feature to be weighed into the balance and does little to justify a change of circumstances.
Age, Sex and Background: As noted earlier, girls are twins and close sisters so it is important they remain together (as they would in this option). Otherwise, these are neutral factors in this analysis.
Harm or Risk of Harm:
As with the other options, there is no risk of immediate harm beyond the concerns about any emotional harm expressed above. I have already expressed my views about the Respondent’s mental health and its stability at the moment. The Court must factor in the low risk of a relapse in the Respondent’s mental health and any development in the future which would mean the Respondent was no longer living with her partner (which there are no signs of happening). If either of these situations eventuated, then there would be a significant risk of emotional harm to the girls. However, I consider the actual risk of this occurring, on the basis of the evidence I have heard, to be low.
There is also an additional risk of emotional harm if the court ordered arrangements for the Applicants seeing the girls breaks down and they do not have the regular contact with them that is anticipated. This would cause them emotional harm.
Parental Capability:
In this scenario, the Applicants would not be providing any day-to-day care anymore and would be reverting to a role of grandparents visiting regularly. The girls would be fully reliant on the Respondent and her partner to provide their parenting. I note the parenting assessment of the Respondent (which was undertaken last year) was not fully supportive of her being the full time carer for the girls because of the recent recovery in her mental health and her reliance on support services. She would need external support.
In favour of the Respondent, that assessment must be considered against the passage of time which has occurred since it was undertaken, including the repeated overnight contact which the Respondent has been having with the girls on the sustained period of good mental health. This serves to lessen some of the worries in the parenting assessment, but not to remove them completely.
Range of Orders: In this scenario, the interim ‘lives with’ order in favour of the Applicants would be discharged and they would have the benefit of a ‘spend times with’ order only. This would mean that the parental responsibility that they currently enjoy would disappear and the Respondent to be fully responsible. This order would interfere in the Article 8 rights of the Applicants, but this would be justified as weighed up against the rights of the Respondent and the girls.
GLOBAL ANALYSIS
Those are my conclusions conducting the individual welfare analysis about each option. I move to assessing the advantages and disadvantages of each option, and then assessing each option as against each other.
Special Guardianship Order (Bristol)
The positives in this option are that there will be a minimal change of circumstances for the girls keeping them in their current home, school, and local community. It will be in keeping with their expressed wishes and feelings, and it will promote finality of decision making in the event of a dispute. The Applicants have been the home makers for the girls for a number of years and, under this option, they would continue as their primary carers. There is no doubt they currently live in a loving and supportive household with their grandparents. They would maintain their links with their wider maternal family and the Applicants would remain open to the Council through the special guardian support plan.
The negatives are this option will not promote the relationship with the Respondent to the fullest extent. There are well evidenced difficulties in communications, and the status of a special guardian may do little to promote a more harmonious family dynamic in an already difficult situation. The Respondent will be a mother at a distance and have to make regular trips to the Bristol area in order to see the girls and take them to City A. I accept her submission that she will see this a marginalised and less important role in their lives, and it will also be more difficult for the girls to develop and strengthen a relationship with their step-siblings.
‘Lives With’ Order in favour of the Applicants (Bristol)
The advantages of this option are substantially similar to those under a special guardianship order. It is, essentially, the continuation of the status quo as currently ordered by the Court. The difference is the legal effect on the parental responsibility. Under this option, the parties would be compelled to work together more and strive to achieve agreement wherever possible. As noted above, this would mean the girls see the adults in their lives working together to protect and nurture them more.
Again, the disadvantages are substantially similar to those above. In addition, there is then the added risk of ‘conflict’ in the event of disagreement on matters which fall outside the scope of the child arrangements order. This would cause the girls emotional harm and impact on the meeting of their needs.
‘Lives With’ Order in favour of the Respondent (City A)
The positives for the welfare of the girls in this scenario are that they would be reunited with their mother, living in a loving (albeit large) household, and still able to spend regular time with the Applicants. They would be living with a number of step-siblings and able to develop family bonds with them more closely. The Respondent would be better able to meet their needs as a parent because she would be in the role she wants to hold as their day to day carer. Her mental health would be at its best under this option. It would be an opportunity for the girls to have a fresh and new start with their mother.
There are important negatives in the change of circumstances and wishes and feelings. This will represent a wholesale change and upheaval in the girls’ lives and mean they move away from the only home they have known, their school, wider family, and friends. Some of those can, of course, be rebuilt over time in City A. But they are of an age where they will remember what has happened and that it was their expressed wish and feeling to keep living with the Applicants. They will be in a bigger household and have to share the attention of the adults.
Further, as I note above, I harbour concerns about some of the impetus for seeking this option however motivated in good faith it may be. Finally, given the difficulties in the past, there is a risk (which is not low) that the Applicants will be less involved in their futures. This risk is much greater than the risk of the Applicants doing the same to the Respondent under the other options.
Final Decision
That is my analysis of the options and the internal advantages and disadvantages of both. I have highlighted the major advantages and disadvantages as I see them. The Court must now step back and holistically consider what is in the best interests of the girls. In doing so, I bear in mind their rights to a private and family life under Article 8, and the similar rights of the parties. Any interference must proportionate.
I am not persuaded it is in the best interests of the girls and their welfare for there to be a relocation to City A. The change in circumstances, the issues concerning parental capability in this scenario, and their wishes and feelings, are significant magnetic factors under the welfare checklist as I have set out above. The undertone of ensuring the girls are back with their mother for the simple sake of that principle is legally erroneous as it does not focus on what would best for them overall. Nor is it appropriate to consider a relocation as some kind of remedy for how the current situation has come about. Put simply, I do not consider uprooting and relocating the girls from their settled and established home environment, their school and wider family, is in their best interests. Their best interests lie in remaining living with the Applicants and having regular and quality time with the Respondent.
I wish to make clear that this decision is not saying the girls must always live with Applicants in the event, as was floated at the hearing, that the Respondent does move back down to the Bristol area. That would be a very different set of considerations to be weighed up at the appropriate time.
The question then is the appropriate form of order. I have narrowly concluded that a special guardianship order is not warranted in this case. I accept that there have been historic circumstances which militate in favour of an option where finality of decision making can be achieved quickly and avoid uncertainty for them. Had this decision been made a year or two ago, it would be different.
However, I do not consider such an option is in the girls’ best interests looking at the case as of now and the likely future. It is better for them that the Applicants and the Respondent are equal stakeholders in their parenting and required to work together in this unique family situation without the ‘elephant in the room’ that one side can always have its way. The girls need their mother still to be as fully involved as possible in their upbringing. This will mean that the parties need to work on their communications, trust in each other more and show greater empathy and understanding of each other’s point of view. But the difficulties in that area in the past do not justify the greater interference of a special guardianship order and the greater risk of marginalisation of the Respondent that would bring.
In coming to this conclusion, I have differed from the section 7 report on its final recommendation but not substantively on a number of its conclusions. As noted earlier, that is not unexpected because this outcome was not something which the report specifically addressed.
For these reasons, I will order the girls will live with the Applicants and spend time with the Respondent.
The parties are in agreement over most of the arrangements in this scenario. The one area for judicial decision is whether there should be contact in City A over weekends in the school term. The concern from the Applicants is that a late return to Bristol will be disruptive to their schooling the next day. I understand this, but it must be balanced with the need to see the Respondent in her settled home and not continuously in AirBnBs or hotels. This will amount to once per month and some of that will fall within holidays and non-school time. I consider it is appropriate to allow the Respondent to take them to City A during term time provided they are returned no later than 4pm – 5pm to Bristol City Centre. It is incumbent of the parties to keep this situation under review – if the girls are not coping then the Court expects the parties to talk and agree a different way forward.
It is inappropriate for Family K to be involved with the girls. The reasons are well known in the evidence. The Respondent consented to a prohibited steps order. I so order.
I grant permission for the Respondent to share this judgment with her partner. The final order can grant permission for it to be shared with the appropriate bodies.
In closing, I accept this decision will be a disappointment to the Respondent. The family dynamic is difficult and parenting is hard at the best of times. All I can reassure her is I have thought carefully about what is best for the girls and the various options open to the court. It is not my role to take the side of her or take the side of her parents. It is my role to take the side of the girls only and do what I think is best for them, not anyone else.
This judgment is being handed down by email circulation to the legal representatives of the parties. The time for appeal runs from hand down. I ask Counsel to prepare an order giving effect to it to be filed directly with me by 13 November 2025.
This judgment will be published in an anonymised form.
That is my judgment.