East Riding of Yorkshire Council v M & Ors

This case concerns 6 children:

The children are represented through their children’s guardian, Dee Norton. She is legally represented by Holly Bates

The mother of the children is M, represented by Jo Jenkins.

The father of B and C is F1, represented by Rachel Woad. F1 lives in a different city and has appeared before me via CVP.

The father of P, Q, R and S is F2, represented by Helen Hendry.

For ease of reference, I will on occasion refer to B and C as being ‘the older children’ and P, Q, R and S as ‘the younger children’.

The children’s maternal grandparents are MGM and MGF (together MGPs). They were joined as parties to proceedings by DJ Pickering before I took over case-management. This was by virtue of the fact that they were (and remain) the carers for the children but that by the early part of 2025, the local authority was seeking findings of alienating behaviour against them. They have appeared before me as litigants in person; generally speaking, it has been MGM who has attended although when circumstances have allowed they have both been at court.

The local authority which brings these proceedings is the East Riding of Yorkshire Council, represented by Connie Purdy. The allocated social worker is Katie Bayram.

The case was listed on the 3 November 2025 for a 5 day contested hearing to deal with welfare issues. The case proceeded, although there were delays for a variety of reasons that it is not necessary to spell out in this judgment. The court heard evidence from Stephanie Derrick, a social work apprentice, and Katie Bayram, the allocated social worker. On the 3^rd morning, being the 5 November 2025, the parties requested more time, which was granted. Thereafter, it was confirmed that barring one relatively minor point, all matters were now agreed or no longer actively contested, and it was not proposed that I hear any more evidence. I endorsed that course of action and heard brief submissions on the issue of whether the older children should be subject to a private law order in favour of their maternal grandparents and if so, for what duration. This is my judgment being handed down on 7 November 2025. In circumstances where the placement of the children and contact arrangements are now agreed it is not strictly necessary to give a full, formal judgment. However, given the protracted nature of these proceedings and the tenacity with which they have generally been fought by key parties, I have decided that I should hand down a judgment. That said, given that matters are now almost entirely agreed I have not found it necessary to go into the history or indeed the welfare assessments in any detail.

In 2000, F1 suffered an injury by virtue of which he now uses a wheelchair. He met M while they were both living in the city where he continues to reside and she was working for a care company involved in supporting him. They became a couple and married in 2004. B was born in 2011 and C the following year. They divorced in 2016 but on all accounts remained amicable and B and C maintained a positive relationship with their father whilst continuing to reside with their mother. They have continued to spend time with him, unsupervised and overnight, on a regular basis throughout these proceedings.

In 2017 M met F2, although in fact they had known each other as children. They formed a relationship and moved to the East Riding. P was born in 2017 and so was Q. R was born in 2019 and S the following year. At the fact-finding earlier this year these parents made concessions as to the nature of their relationship; the wording is set out below. What is clear to me having had cause to reread their statements in preparation for this hearing, is that M and F2 share certain personality traits, although I don’t doubt that each would like to think they are the diametric opposite of the other. Within their written evidence they both take painstaking issue with nearly every negative thing said about them, often drilling down into individual sentences in assessments. Both minimise personal responsibility for the suffering of the children, preferring to blame the other side of the family. It is a tedious approach and a real deflection from the fact that in the middle of their entrenched positions were six children, all suffering harm. It makes it obvious to me quite how unsuited they must have been as a couple. They are what Thomas Hardy described as ‘two bitters in one dish’: non-complementary flavours, never destined to work in the same recipe.

In February 2023 the local authority received its first referral about the family following a police report of domestic abuse. The couple separated later that year and F2 made a private law application in September 2023, having not spent time with his children for some months.

Within those private law proceedings M alleged that she had been the victim of long-standing abuse and violence at the hands of F2. F2 denied such allegations and raised his own concerns about the welfare of children in the care of their mother. What is now clear, given concessions that were later made within these public law proceedings, is that there was truth on both sides. With respect to the children’s experiences, it is clear that for a significant period of time they were exposed to domestic abuse whilst the adult relationship persisted and also subject to chaotic, neglectful and harmful parenting in the care of their mother. She was drinking to excess, even by the standards regularly seen in these courts. Neighbours had reported her drinking between 5 and 6 bottles of wine a day and M herself later admitted that on some days she was drinking 4 bottles of wine. Perhaps unsurprisingly given that level of alcohol consumption, home conditions deteriorated, school attendance was poor with the children often attending hungry and the mother’s mental health was affected, with her regularly presenting as tearful. There were repeated incidents of her allowing unsuitable adults into the children’s family home and the children were exposed to frightening experiences as a result. I did not hear from the mother at this final hearing, but on the basis of the evidence I have read it is not clear to me that even now she fully comprehends the extent of the harm the children suffered at this period in their lives. Nor, having read F2’s evidence – and again acknowledging that I have not heard from him – is it clear that he understands the impact that his past behaviours may have had on the children’s reaction to him. They have unquestionably been subject to alienation. However, with respect to whether their reactions to their father have been a product of alienation and/or exposure to historic domestic abuse, it is much more likely, in my judgment, to be a case of ‘both/and’ than ‘either/or’.

The local authority issued public law proceedings on 5 June 2024. The case came before me the following day. I made interim care orders with respect to the children and approved plans for the older children to stay with their father and the younger children to live with their paternal grandparents. That was very much a holding position pending further determination, given that the older children were both at school in the East Riding and, furthermore, this plan separated the sibling group. The matter came back before me on 10 June 2024. Initially the local authority proposed a continuation of the arrangements approved the previous week. However, the guardian disagreed and proposed placement of all six children in the care of the maternal grandparents, with those grandparents moving into the mother’s home (where, of course, the children were used to living) and the mother moving out. Having been given an indication by me, the local authority did not pursue its interim plans. The children were placed in the care of the MGPs under interim care orders, where they have remained to date.

DJ Pickering then took over case management. Home conditions improved significantly and quickly once the maternal grandparents moved into the family home. It is clear from everything that I have read that they also quickly and adeptly instilled routines and boundaries for the children. Reading the draft final fostering assessment has highlighted just how skilful this couple have been at organising and running a busy family home. The initial contact between the younger 4 children and their father, on 24 June 2024, was reported in positive terms. They were excited to see him. By the end of July, the mother was reporting abstinence from alcohol.

Unfortunately, contact between the younger children and their father did not progress smoothly. P alleged that he had been smacked by his father during a contact supervised by the paternal grandparents in early September; some of the children also raised concerns about aggression from their paternal grandfather. Those allegations have always been denied and have not been litigated within these long-running proceedings.

In October 2024 the local authority filed its then final evidence recommending that the children remained living with the maternal grandparents. They noted concerns with respect to F2’s mental health and aggression and, separately, concerns about the very recent nature of the mother’s abstinence as well as her ability consistently to manage the behaviours of her children during family time.

An issues resolution hearing took place on 4 December 2024. The court endorsed the guardian’s recommendation that the cross-allegations of domestic abuse and parental alienation made by the mother and F2 be litigated, on the basis that the determination of those allegations was necessary to enable the court to make final welfare decisions.

Between that date and the next hearing on 6 February 2025, the local authority became increasingly concerned that the maternal grandparents and the mother were alienating Q, P, R and S from F2 and the paternal grandparents. Q and P routinely asked if contact supervisors were going to tell their maternal grandparents they had been good or bad during contact with their father and, highly unusually, seemed anxious and upset at the prospect of their maternal grandparents being told that they had been good.

At the adjourned issues resolution hearing on 6 February 2025, DJ Pickering re-allocated the matter to me. He granted the MGPs party status. He also granted the paternal grandparents intervener status although noted that this would be subject to review.

The matter came before me for case management on 13 March 2025. I determined that it was neither necessary nor proportionate to litigate allegations against the paternal grandparents and, therefore, discharged them as interveners. I gave directions in preparation for the finding of fact hearing, which was listed to start on 29 April.

There were pre-trial reviews on 8 and 22 April 2025 over the course of which both M and F2 made concessions to the local authority’s factual case.

I heard the finding of fact hearing on various dates between 29 April and 9 May 2025. I heard evidence from Paula Robinson (social worker), Lindsay Wilson (Intensive Family Support Worker) and Hollie Bradley and Leanne Beaumont (family time co-ordinators). At that juncture, and before any of the respondent parties had given evidence, the mother, F2 and the maternal grandparents made significant concessions with respect to various threshold and welfare findings sought by the local authority (thus mirroring what later happened at this final hearing). Whilst M and F2 maintained their disputed cross-allegations of domestic abuse against each other, they both accepted that it was neither necessary nor proportionate to litigate those allegations beyond the concessions made and that, therefore, the court and the professionals would work on the basis those things did not happen. The court timetabled the case through to an IRH/EFH on welfare issues on 8 August 2025.

By the conclusion of fact-finding hearing the court had made the following findings (this being a cumulative list based on concessions made both at that hearing and earlier hearings).

The IRH/EFH on 8 August 2025 was ineffective. The local authority sought further time to formulate its final evidence and care plans for the younger children and to address the various care planning options that the mother, F2 and the guardian had proposed. The local authority indicated that its final care plans for the younger 4 children were likely to be for them to remain in the care of the MGPs under final care orders; the ADM had very recently approved them as temporary foster carers. I timetabled through to a further adjourned IRH on the 10 October and listed a 5 day final hearing on the 3 November (the current hearing) on the basis that (a) matters were unlikely to be resolved at IRH, given the history; and (b) the November dates were my earliest availability. That then, sets out at some length the protracted history of this litigation and serves as some sort of explanation (rather than justification) for the delay that these children have been subject to.

It is important to note, and relevant to the orders that I will make with respect to the younger children, that problems with arranging contact between the younger children and their father persisted right up to the time of the final hearing. As the local authority has rightly observed, this is the one area in which it has consistently had to exercise its overriding parental responsibility for those children. (It has not had to exercise its parental responsibility for the older children at all).

At the start of the final hearing, the parties’ positions were, in summary

The court heard evidence from Stephanie Derrick, an apprentice social worker who worked with the family following the fact-finding hearing on the issue of alienating behaviours. The court also heard evidence from Katie Baryam, the allocated social worker and author of the local authority’s care plans. In circumstances where, for reasons already set out, the court did not hear from any other party and positions shifted significantly mid-hearing, it is not necessary to set out in any detail the evidence from either witness. However, what is clear, both from their evidence and my reading of the papers more generally are the following propositions:

It would be naïve to think, and the evidence does not suggest, that the totality of the harm previously caused by alienating behaviours was instantly undone. That is not how emotional harm works. However, for the reasons set out above I am satisfied that the alienating behaviours have either ceased or largely abated. That is not the same as saying that inter-familial hostility and mistrust have ceased or abated. It is quite clear that that continues on both sides. It would be better for the children if it did not: B and C are proof of that. However, the court is not in a position to dictate or control the interpersonal feelings of adults. The court’s role is to protect the welfare of children. I am satisfied that the younger children are now shielded from previous alienating behaviours. For reasons that I go on to explain, I am satisfied that the orders I make today will protect the children’s welfare moving forward.

After hearing the evidence of those, two, local authority witnesses, and having granted further time for discussions and instructions the positions of the parties shifted. No party actively opposed the younger children remaining in the care of the maternal grandparents under care orders. In particular, F2 no longer sought to persuade the court that the children should be placed in foster care. Although, given his concerns, he does not consent to the local authority’s plans for his children, nor does he continue actively to oppose them. To his credit, he acknowledged the extremely positive care that the maternal grandparents have, in very many regards, provided for his children. For her part, M no longer sought to persuade the court that she should be allowed to move back into the home shared by the maternal grandparents and the children; rather, she accepted that her focus should be on obtaining a property suitable to house the older children, with a view to their rehabilitation to her care and, thereafter, to work with the local authority to consider whether a later rehabilitation of the younger children was consistent with their ongoing welfare needs. The guardian no longer sought to persuade the court to make 12 month supervision orders for the older children; she was satisfied that the local authority’s commitment, if necessary, to maintaining those children on child in need plans with the same level of support after the six-month period would protect their welfare interests. The grandparents agreed with the above positions.

Having listened to my judicial indication, the local authority agreed that, subject to a safety plan that can be prepared in very short order, the mother will be allowed to have contact with the children in their family home. That, I am satisfied, will provide a much more natural environment for the children to enjoy time with their mother. As that progresses, I encourage the local authority to look both at increasing the time that the mother is able to spend in the family home and progressing the mother’s contact with the children to being unsupervised, noting that the local authority’s plan is for F2’s contact to be unsupervised in the very near future.

The single issue that remains contentious is as to whether I should make child arrangements orders (live with) with respect to B and C living with their maternal grandparents. F1 opposes this for reasons I have summarised above. All other parties support the making of such orders. I have also heard submissions with respect to the extent to which, if at all, such orders should be time-limited. All parties accept and agree that as things stand and subject to the mother finding suitable accommodation the intention is that B and C should be in her full-time care in around 2 to 3 months’ time. Although that is the single issue that is contentious between the parties, it nevertheless remains for me to be satisfied, as the Judge, that all of the orders – including those which are agreed or not actively opposed – are the right orders for these children.

Threshold was found crossed for the purposes of making final orders at the finding of fact hearing discussed above. I confirm that I was and remain satisfied that threshold as per section 31(2) of the Children Act 1989 is crossed.

Each child’s welfare is my paramount consideration as per section 1 of the Children Act. The welfare checklist in section 1(3) applies. I must not make an order unless doing so is better for the child concerned than making no order at all: section 1(5).

I turn first to the younger children, P, Q, R and S.

For the reasons set out above I am satisfied that the welfare of each of P, Q, R and S requires that I place them into the care of the East Riding of Yorkshire Council. I approve a permanence plan for them to remain in the care of MGM and MGF. In so doing, I acknowledge that they have not yet been approved at panel as kinship foster carers. However, I have read the overwhelmingly positive draft assessment of them filed this week and have no reason to doubt that they will be approved at the next panel. If not, the local authority will continue to have parental responsibility, and it will be for them to exercise that responsibility to ensure that the children’s welfare needs continue to be met. It is unimaginable to me that they would conclude, at this stage, that the children should be separated from the care of their grandparents.

The local authority’s plans for contact are set out with sufficient clarity in the care plans before the court, with the caveat already indicated that they will allow the mother to have contact in the maternal grandparents’ home subject to appropriate safety plans being put in place. I approve the local authority’s care plans with respect to contact.

I had the real pleasure of meeting the eldest two children, B and C, at court on 30 October 2025, the week before this final hearing commenced. They were genuinely delightful children and their parents and maternal grandparents should be extremely proud of the charming and polite young people they are. It was clear to me that these children want their mum back in their lives; they have consistently said so and C told me so in our meeting. That is their ascertainable wish. Given their ages, their ascertainable wishes and feelings carry more weight than those of their younger siblings. Furthermore, under paragraph ‘e’ of the welfare checklist, the harms that they have suffered and are at risk of suffering are different to their younger siblings. They have always enjoyed and will continue to enjoy a positive relationship with their father.

The agreed plan for B and C is that they will transition to their mother’s care following a family group conference which is anticipated to take place within the next two months. That family group conference is to consider safety planning. The transition will also be subject to the mother securing a suitable property, although her evidence is that she is confident in that regard. Everyone agrees that that is the right plan for these children. So do I. The contentious issue as I’ve already set out is whether or not, in the meantime, they should be subject to a child arrangements order (live with) in favour of the maternal grandparents. F1 opposes this for reasons I have already summarised. He is concerned that if for whatever reason, including the mother’s confidence that she can secure alternative accommodation being misplaced, he will end up sharing parental responsibility with the maternal grandparents in the long term and in circumstances where he says they have not always consulted him before taking important decisions with respect to his children. I have considered whether in those circumstances I should allow the children to remain in the care of the maternal grandparents (pending rehabilitation to their mother) with no order in favour of their carers. It would be open to F1 and M to delegate day-to-day exercise of parental responsibility for their children to the MGPs. The problem with this scenario is that the maternal grandparents currently receive a fostering allowance for all six children. The local authority has confirmed that if the older children remain with their grandparents under child arrangements orders the fostering allowance for them will continue, albeit pro rata, as they spend more time in the care of their mother and less with their grandparents. If there is no child arrangements order, then no fostering allowance will be paid for B or C. That is unfortunate. The local authority has discretion under section 17 of the Children Act to make payments. I accept, as do the parties, that I have no power to order them to exercise that discretion favourably.

The reality for B and C is that pending rehabilitation to their mother they will continue, as they have done for over a year now, to live with their grandparents. On a day to day basis it will continue to be the grandparents who make decisions for them. I would not want to put the MGPs or, importantly, B and C in a situation where their welfare was diminished by virtue of their being less available money to care for them. I have considered whether I should exercise my powers under section 11(7) of the Children Act to give a predefined end date, such as two or three months’ time, for any child arrangements order in favour of the grandparents. The rehabilitation has not yet been affected. There may be delay occasioned by the mother’s need to secure suitable accommodation. There may be delay occasioned by other factors. In the meantime, B and C’s lived reality is that they will be in the care of their grandparents who will be exercising parental responsibility for them one way or the other. Having heard submissions from all parties, I am satisfied that by virtue of section 11(7)(c) and/or (d) of the Children Act 1989 I have the power to make a child arrangements order (live with) that comes to an end by virtue of a particular milestone being achieved rather than on a pre-defined date. No party has submitted otherwise.

I am satisfied, having considered B and C’s welfare in light of the welfare checklist matters already referenced with respect to the younger children, that each of the older children’s welfare requires that I put them under the supervision of the East Riding of Yorkshire Council for a period of six months. I do that on the basis that this enables the local authority as supervisor to ensure that the children’s welfare continues to be met before, during and, as anticipated, after rehabilitation to the care of their mother. I will make a child arrangements order for each of the older children specifying that they live with their father, F1, and, separately, with their maternal grandparents, MGF and MGM. The latter order will be specified as ceasing to have effect once the children have fully transitioned to the care of their mother. At that point there will be a child arrangements order (live with) in favour of M running alongside the already existing child arrangements order (live with) in favour of F1. I make no directions with respect to the arrangements for moving the children between their different homes. Those arrangements have always been made consensually between the relevant adults and I have no reason to think that they won’t continue to be made in the same manner.

I have been addressed in closing submissions with respect to a series of recitals that respective parties want included in the final order. I take no issue with the inclusion of those recitals with the caveat that they must be proportionate. I will review them, and reserve the right to edit or remove them, when the final order is sent through.

Those are my orders. However, I do not want to leave the case there.

I have had occasion to say many negative things about most of the adult family members throughout the duration of these proceedings and indeed within this judgment. I don’t resile from those observations, but I want to end these proceedings with positives.

M has done fantastically well to overcome, to date, what was clearly a chronic alcohol problem. She should be proud of her sobriety and I encourage her to hold onto it as she moves forward and onwards with her life.

F2 has shown a remarkable dedication in his attendance at contact and maintenance of focus and patience during multiple sessions that must have been deeply distressing to him as a father.

MGF and MGM have made sacrifices in their lives over and above anything that could have been expected, even of grandparents; they have moved their home and their lives to provide security, structure and safety for 6 children who would undoubtedly have been separated if they had not stepped forward. Reading the draft fostering assessment brought home to me the truly outstanding level of sacrificial love they have provided for their grandchildren.

I have not had cause to say anything negative about F1 during these proceedings. That is because he has carried himself with patience and gentle good sense throughout and has appropriately risen above the interfamilial hostilities all around him.

Beyond that, and beyond the criticisms that I have had to make of the other adults, what is clear to me is that all of the adults mentioned love these children. I truly hope that moving forward that love acts as a stronger guide to their behaviours than their feelings towards other adults who also love the children.