N and S, Re

On 20/09/24, the Local Authority (‘the LA’) applied for care orders in relation to N and S. The LA had, and continues to have, significant concerns about the safety and well-being of the children at home.

At first, the LA sought and was granted interim supervision orders with a view to undertaking further assessments of the children’s parents, whom I shall call the Mother and the Father. However, in due course, the LA came to the view that the children needed to be removed from their parents’ care and developed a care plan pursuant to which the children would be placed in long-term foster care.

In July this year, there were promising signs that a suitable placement had been identified; however, the proposed foster parents withdrew. By the time of the final hearing, no further suitable placements had been identified. Accordingly, the care plan which I was asked to consider would involve the children being moved into a residential children’s home, albeit with a view to moving on to a long-term foster placement if one can be identified.

The Mother and the Father object to the LA’s application. They – and all parties – are agreed that the children cannot at the present time safely be placed in their Father’s care. However, they both consider that the children’s welfare will better be met if they remain in their Mother’s care with appropriate support, with the Father and Mother remaining separated and the children having supervised contact with the Father.

As I understand it, all parties agree that, at present, those are in substance the two realistic options for the children. I also agree, although there may be variations in the details of how these options would work in practice.

I have before me a wide range of professional reports and opinions. The recommendations of the three social workers most closely involved in this case have developed throughout the proceedings. I will trace those developments where relevant later in this judgment. However, by the time of the final hearing, the LA’s social worker and the children’s guardian agreed that the children should be removed from their parents’ care; indeed, although they recognised that this was not ideal, they agreed that the children should be removed immediately into a residential children’s home. The latest report of the independent social worker (‘ISW’) had expressed the view that the children should be removed from their parents’ care into foster care on the basis of the material she then had. However, she was alerted in cross-examination by Monica Young on behalf of the Mother to various courses and therapies which the Mother had undertaken and proposed to undertake and to other developments in the Mother’s position. In her responses, the ISW explained that, if the court was satisfied that the Mother had indeed taken and would take those steps and that she would have adequate support at home, this would be capable of addressing her concerns. In that event, she would take the view that the children should remain in the Mother’s care.

Although I had sufficient time at the end of the hearing to deliberate and reach a decision, I did not have time to deliver a judgment. Accordingly, in order to reduce further delay, I informed the parties of my decision and provided some brief reasons. My decision was that, in the current circumstances, the children’s welfare would best be met by remaining in their Mother’s care with continuing support from support workers provided by the LA, with a view to transitioning to a position in which the Mother would receive support from her family and the need for support workers would decrease.

I hope very much that the result of this process will be a situation in which the children can remain safely in the care of their Mother with limited LA support. However, I recognise that there is a risk that this will not be the result and that the LA might at some point consider it necessary to make a further application. Nevertheless, it was and remains my view that the balance of risk falls in favour of this option at this stage. Accordingly, I invited the LA to consider whether it would be willing to provide that support under a supervision order (or, potentially, if the LA sought it, a care order), to arrange a family group conference and to prepare a supervision support plan.

This judgment now sets out fuller reasons for my decision. I believe these to be consistent with the summary reasons I gave orally at the hearing but, in the event of any inconsistency, this judgment should prevail.

Under section 31 of the Children Act 1989 (‘the 1989 Act’), I may make a care order or a supervision order only if the test set out in section 31(2) is met at the time the application was made. This is commonly known as the ‘threshold’. Section 31(2) provides as follows:

If the threshold is crossed, my decision as to whether or not to make such an order (and on what basis) is guided by the principles set out in section 1 of the 1989 Act. In particular, my paramount consideration is the welfare of N and S. That consideration is illuminated further by the considerations set out in section 1(3), to which I must have regard. These are commonly known as the ‘welfare checklist’. They are:

There are other relevant matters set out in section 1, such as the principle that some involvement by a parent in the life of a child will further the child’s welfare unless the

I must also have regard to the ‘permanence provisions’ of the care plan.

In a case such as this, where the care plan is for long-term and indefinite separation of the children from their parents, I must be satisfied that the order is necessary and proportionate. As the Supreme Court held in Re H-W [2022] 2 FLR 533, paragraph 4:

However, as the Court of Appeal emphasised in Re N [2025] 1 FLR 686, this does not give rise to any presumption in favour of a child living with their parents. The fact of parenthood and the benefits of a child being brought up in their ‘natural’ family are important considerations, but they are only a part of the picture. I need to conduct a ‘balancing exercise in which each option is evaluated to the degree of detail necessary to analyse and weigh its own internal positives and negatives and each option is then compared, side by side, against the competing option or options’: see in particular paragraphs 56 to 62 of the judgment of Moylan LJ.

I should add that Ms Young submitted, by reference to cases such as In re J [2013] 1 AC 680, that the balancing exercise should be based on real potential harm and not on mere suspicion or speculation. I agree that the exercise must be properly based in the evidence and on a foundation of facts which I am satisfied are true on the balance of probabilities. However, any consideration of the welfare of children moving forwards will necessarily (at least in this case) involve an assessment of risk and potential, and in that sense it is necessary for the court to engage in an analysis of future possibilities. I did not understand Ms Young to be suggesting otherwise.

In making my findings where the facts are in dispute, I have applied the approach set out in cases such as Re JS [2012] EWHC 1370 (Fam) and Re B-B (Domestic Abuse: Findings of Fact) [2022] EWHC 108 (Fam), especially paragraph 26. In summary, it is generally for the party seeking a finding of fact to establish, on the basis of the evidence taken as a whole, that it is more likely to be true than not. My impressions of the witnesses are a relevant, but not determinative, factor. The fact that I might be satisfied that a witness has been dishonest (or otherwise unreliable) about one or more facts might be a relevant consideration in relation to my weighing of the evidence in relation to other facts. However, there are many reasons why a person might lie about certain matters and it does not follow that they would also lie about different matters. As the Court of Appeal made clear in Re H [2025] 1 FLR 893, paragraphs 15 to 24, I will need to consider ‘what, if any weight, should be given to that aspect of the matter, after due consideration of any explanations that have been offered [as] part of the normal process of sifting and weighing the evidence’.

N and S both have autism spectrum disorders and other related challenges. Both have an education and healthcare plan (‘EHCP’). There is no dispute that these are an accurate reflection of N and S’s needs and challenges as they stood at the time.

N’s EHCP records that N is ‘mainly non-verbal’. It states that it takes N ‘a while to trust someone’ and emphasises N’s need for ‘high levels of structure and routine’. It records that ‘[N] can sometimes find unexpected changes to routine upsetting’.

N’s EHCP also records that ‘Emotional warmth comes from both parents [but] when [N] gets upset [N] goes to mum first. [N] depends on dad for all of their physical needs…. Both [N’s] mum and dad understand [N’s] needs and pay attention to [N’s] different methods of communication.’ Under the heading, ‘What is important to me’, it records ‘[N’s] dad, mum and brother’.

However, later on, the EHCP records concerns around the fact that the Mother was (at that time) ‘largely bed bound’ because of her own physical health conditions and that being ‘essentially a sole carer for mother and the children’ was affecting the Father’s mental health and wellbeing. There were also concerns about N’s exposure to arguments between the parents and a lack of sufficient boundaries, supervision and assistance at home. Further, there were concerns about the lack of a suitable support network should the Father be unable to care for N: at that time, he was on bail awaiting trial.

The EHCP provides guidance about the nature of N’s developmental and physical needs. N has ‘significantly delayed self-care skills and relies on a high level of adult support’. At this time, N also wore nappies and sometimes soiled themself without apparently realising. N had a limited awareness of danger and could often walk away or run off. The EHCP records that clear boundaries and expectations at school were helping to decrease N’s emotional dysregulation but that, at that time, ‘[N] more frequently experiences emotional dysregulation at home, which can lead to significant distress and anger communicated through challenging behaviour and meltdowns’.

S’s EHCP says that S’s communication is mainly non-verbal. It also records that S’s mum, dad and sister were important to S. So far as S’s relationships with the parents are concerned, S’s EHCP is in very similar terms to N’s as set out in paragraph 20 above.

As with N, S’s EHCP also records that S faces various physical and developmental challenges. S also responds positively to ‘high levels of structure and routine as well as familiar adults’. There were similar concerns about S’s emotional wellbeing and regulation at home as compared to school. S also had significantly delayed independence and self-care skills and was highly reliant on adults to meet S’s personal care needs. S is recorded as having no awareness of danger which, together with S’s other needs, ‘can put [S] at risk of hurting [themself]’.

As I will come to explain, some of the contextual facts have developed significantly since the EHCPs were finalised. However, in my judgment, the descriptions of the children’s fundamental needs and challenges remain applicable now. Those descriptions are consistent with more recent evidence, including that set out in the Sibling Assessment report completed by the allocated social worker. (The report is actually dated 2024 but, as I understand it, this is a typographical error as I believe the report was completed this summer.) For example, the social worker recorded that:

The social worker also concluded that:

Accordingly, in my judgment, it is clear that N and S are highly vulnerable children who require very high levels of adult support to keep them physically safe and healthy, to manage their emotional difficulties, and to support their educational and emotional development. In common with a number of other children with ASD, they also need high levels of structure and routine and struggle to manage change: in their case, significant changes to what they are used to can cause serious emotional harm and dysregulation. They have a strong emotional connection to their parents (particularly their Mother), who are very important to them, and to each other.

The LA’s final threshold document is in large part agreed; indeed, the Mother agrees it in full. There are certain assertions in it with which the Father takes issue, to which I shall return. Towards the start of the hearing, Mr Potter on behalf of the LA helpfully provided a version of the final threshold document which highlighted those parts which the Father did not agree. Otherwise, the document was fully agreed. In my judgment, the agreed parts set out a useful summary of the factual position as at the time the application was made.

Some key features of those factual circumstances include the following:

Underpinning of many of these concerns was the volatile relationship between the Mother and the Father, and the Father’s behaviour towards the Mother (largely as a result of his alcohol and drug abuse). The LA’s position in the threshold document, rightly in my view, was that this was a causative problem not just in itself but also because it contributed to the Mother’s unwillingness to seek or follow through on support, to the failure to set appropriate boundaries and provide suitable care and supervision, and to the state of the home.

A further significant feature which does not come through quite so clearly from the threshold document was the Mother’s ill-health. She suffers from a number of conditions. When the LA made its application, she was frequently bed-bound and when she did move about she had to use a wheelchair. Her own physical limitations meant that, as the children’s EHCPs recognised, she was unable to provide the children with the basic care that they needed. That responsibility fell to the Father.

This does not mean that the Mother was unable to provide them with appropriate emotional care. There is a range of evidence which supports the conclusion that she could and did. I have already referred to the EHCPs. Further, in the Sibling Assessment, the social worker accepted that the Mother was ‘attentive to their emotional needs, recognising signs of distress and responding with care and understanding’. Although she rightly maintained in cross-examination that there were times when the children were emotionally dysregulated and the Mother struggled to settle them, the social worker accepted that the Mother could meet their emotional needs to a reasonable standard.

However, the fact remains that the Mother did herself suffer from mental health issues which could impede her ability to provide the necessary support to the children even on a non-physical level. I accept what the ISW said in her first report: the Mother ‘is very warm and loving towards the children and very protective of them, she has the capacity to meet their emotional needs, when she is not being compromised by domestic violence or sadness about her situation and condition’.

It is also important to record at this stage that this family had been supported by the LA for some considerable time. The children were placed on a child in need plan in 2021 and on a child protection plan in 2023. The social worker’s first statement set out details of the various offers or suggestions of support which were made to the parents. Although it is clear that the parents did engage at some level with the LA, it is equally clear that frequently they failed either to take up those offers or suggestions or to see them through. There were times when they were not transparent with, and did not work constructively with, professionals.

I am satisfied that a significant reason for that was the parents’ own difficulties. The Mother suffered from debilitating ill-health which, in turn, adversely affected her mental health. This meant that the Father was left with the formidable responsibility of caring physically for two very challenging and vulnerable young children and for the Mother, and both parents will have been affected by the emotional challenges this presented. The Father, as I have said, suffered from alcohol and drug issues which, in my judgment, are themselves likely to have been caused or exacerbated by this situation but which, in turn, made things that much more difficult. The resulting volatility of their relationship then itself adversely affected both parties yet further. There was a storm of interconnected pressures and adversities.

It is a paradox that the help which was being proposed by the LA would, or at least should, have helped the parents with these challenges but I have no doubt that these difficulties were also a very significant cause of the parents’ failure to accept that help or to do what was needed to make it fruitful. I accept the analysis of Dr Dowsett, a consultant clinical psychologist, in his report on the Mother:

In relation to the issue of the parents failing to secure appropriate education for the children, there is no dispute – and I agree – that this constituted neglect and that it is something which contributed to the threshold being crossed. However, in my judgment, it is important to record that this did not arise because the parents did not care about their children’s education. I accept their evidence that they were concerned about whether their children’s schools were able to meet their needs and they wanted the children to be educated in more specialist settings. Indeed, the fact that both children have now been offered places in specialist schools could, to some extent, be seen as a vindication of that view.

The parents also believed that the children were being subjected to physical harm. I have seen images of bruising on the children. In my judgment, these do not establish that the children were not properly being cared for by their schools: children with these sorts of needs are liable to get into scrapes even when proper care is being taken of them. However, misguided and rash though the parents’ reaction to this was, I am satisfied that they believed that they were doing the right thing for the children and their decision was not completely arbitrary.

As I mentioned above, there are a number of issues in the final threshold document which remain in dispute between the LA and the Father. Those issues all concern or are closely related to allegations of domestic abuse between the parents. Accordingly, in substance, they are disputes between the Mother and the Father, although it is the LA which needs to prove them.

The issues primarily concern allegations of physical and sexual abuse of the Mother and controlling behaviour. There is also an allegation that the Father swore at police in front of the children.

In my judgment, the evidence establishes that the Father swore at the police in front of the children as alleged. That is recorded in the near-contemporaneous police records. Although the Mother does not suggest that she heard the Father swearing on this occasion, her evidence is that this is consistent with his behaviour at other times when he has been under the influence of alcohol. In my judgment, it is entirely plausible that the Father would have sworn at and argued with the police as alleged: this was clearly an emotional and stressful moment and, as I have said, he was inclined to drink and at times not fully to be in control. In my judgment, in those circumstances, he might also be unable to recollect this occasion well.

Otherwise, in my view, the evidence is finely balanced. The Mother’s allegations are broadly consistent with what she is recorded as having told the police at the time. However, until an incident in late 2024, the Mother would typically withdraw all of her allegations. Further, in relation to that 2024 incident, although there was a recording of it, the Father was not charged with physical assault as the Mother alleges but only with threats to kill.

There is also evidence to suggest that the Mother might have been making allegations of this sort as a means of exerting control over situations in which they had quarrelled or she otherwise felt trapped or vulnerable, and both the ISW and Dr Dowsett expressed concern that she might have been using police reporting in this way. Indeed, on her own evidence, she would sometimes threaten to report the Father to the immigration authorities so that he would be deported; it is not a very big step from this to reporting him to the police with a view to trying to exert agency which, partly as a result of her disabilities, she felt that she lacked.

It is also part of the LA’s case – which, as I will come to explain, I broadly accept – that the Mother has not been entirely honest and transparent in her dealings with professionals.

I also considered the Father to be a broadly credible witness and the impression I formed of him in the witness box was that he was calm and thoughtful. On the other hand, I also bear in mind that the Father might have behaved in a way when he was drunk which would otherwise be out of character or which he might not fully recall.

In relation to the allegations of controlling behaviour, the Father’s own evidence supports the proposition that he could be jealous and he clearly was in a position to exert control over the Mother but, on the other hand, the Mother’s physical restrictions and her heavy reliance on the Father were liable to make her feel controlled and frustrated even if in fact he was not doing anything which would fall within the definition of coercive or controlling behaviour under Practice Direction 12J of the Family Procedure Rules.

Particularly in light of these evidential difficulties, I have considered anxiously whether I need to make the findings sought by the LA on these particular issues. I am satisfied that I do not. They would make no material difference to my decision.

On the one hand, if the Mother’s allegations were true, they would underline the concerns about domestic abuse and the risks of her and the Father recommencing their relationship. However, that is already an issue which carries very significant weight in these proceedings. Even if on the assumption that the allegations were true, it would not materially alter the balance of risks which I have undertaken in reaching my conclusion.

On the other hand, if the allegations are not true, this would underline the concerns about the Mother’s honesty and openness. However, again, this is already an issue which carries very significant weight in these proceedings. Again, even if I proceeded on the assumption that the Mother was also being dishonest about these allegations, the overall balance would not fall differently.

I have also considered whether, looked at from a broader perspective, it is necessary to make findings so that the LA and others can better assess the level of the Father’s insight into his behaviour when considering issues such as future contact. However, I am in any event satisfied that, even if the Mother’s allegations were true, the Father’s conduct was caused by his alcohol abuse. A central issue therefore is whether he has that under control. I do not consider that any additional potential benefit of having findings on these specific allegations would outweigh the risk – given the nature of the evidence – that any such findings would be unreliable.

Accordingly, save in relation to the Father swearing and arguing with police in front of the children, I decline to make any further findings in relation to the final threshold document. It follows that these matters should be treated as not established; but for the avoidance of doubt, I make no positive finding that they are untrue.

There have been a number of significant developments since the autumn of 2024, some of which are positive, others of which are very concerning.

As I have mentioned already, in late 2024 the Mother reported the Father to the police. He was arrested and, having pleaded guilty to making threats to kill, later convicted of that offence. He was incarcerated between late 2024 and mid-2025.

In light also of the Mother’s physical restrictions at that time, this presented major concerns about the children’s welfare. Partly for that reason, the LA initially applied for an interim care order. However, arrangements were made for the Mother’s sister to move in with her and the LA and the children’s guardian were satisfied that, in conjunction with professional support secured by the LA, this was sufficient to secure their welfare.

The LA accepts, and I also accept, that during this period the children became much more settled and have made good progress. They have also been attending school regularly this calendar year. S attends a specialist school. The evidence establishes that S has made considerable improvements since starting there. The LA has recently accepted that N should also attend a specialist school and N is due to move there soon. In my judgment, there is good reason to suppose that in the medium- to long-term this will also be beneficial for N’s development.

Professional reports completed in late 2024 and early 2025 were cautiously optimistic. The Guardian’s interim assessment recorded that the Mother’s sister had moved in to assist and that the maternal grandmother was also visiting three days per week to help. She noted that the Mother had been engaging with a domestic abuse support worker and had expressed her commitment to focussing on herself and the children. The Guardian was still concerned about the potential risk posed by the Father if he were released and the possibility that the Mother would resume her relationship with him. However, she recommended that the children remain in their Mother’s care while assessments took place. I note that she also expressed the view that ‘residential care… would not be in the best interest of [N or S] due to their ages’.

In her report, the ISW expressed similar concerns. She was worried that the parents might reunite when the Father was released from prison. Like the children’s guardian, she was worried about the apparent level of the children’s dysregulation at home and the Mother’s physical limitations. She was concerned that the Mother was overprotective of the children and that she was struggling to find the right balance between protecting them and meeting their needs for structure and development. However, she considered that, if a number of articulated conditions were met, the children should remain in their Mother’s care. These conditions included, but were not limited to, the need to firm up the family support network, the need for the Mother to access courses and continue to work with professionals, and the need for the parents not to reunite (at least until suitable work had been completed).

However, over the following months a number of very concerning developments occurred. Some of the key events are set out below.

First, in early 2025, the care agency reported to the LA that the Mother had been away from the home for around a week. She had not kept the LA informed about this, as she plainly should have done. When the social worker spoke to the Mother’s sister about this, she was told that the Mother was staying with their mother (i.e. the maternal grandmother of the children). It later transpired that the Mother had in fact gone with her mother to another country for treatment for her health conditions. It might well be that this was a reasonable thing to do but the LA is rightly concerned about the Mother’s inability or unwillingness to be open about it so that decisions could be made jointly about whether this would be consistent with the children’s welfare and how that could best be managed.

The LA is also concerned that the Mother might then have made allegations against the support workers in retaliation for the fact that they reported her absence.

In early 2025, the Mother contacted the agency and reported that she had seen a bruise on S’s hand and, when she raised this with the carer, the carer said it was an infection (which the Mother did not accept). In February 2025, she reported an incident in which a different carer threatened S by saying that he would ‘beat’ S if S did not stop what S was doing. Further, the social worker’s evidence is that in February 2025 the Mother and her sister ‘referred to one carer as a “traitor”’.

The social worker’s evidence on the latter point is quite vague and I accept the Mother’s evidence that it was her sister and not she who said that the support workers were traitors. Nevertheless, the timing of the reports about the support workers does give rise to a real possibility that they were acts of retaliation and, if they were, this would be extremely troubling.

On balance, I accept the Mother’s evidence that these were genuine reports which reflected her honest concerns at the time. Indeed, in relation to the report in February 2025, the carer admitted that he had threatened S as alleged. This was reasonably serious and, indeed, the agency suspended him on the same day. In relation to the report in January 2025, it is far less clear that the carer had in fact done anything wrong. However, as I have already explained, the Mother had made similar reports against the school – as recently as December 2024 according to the social worker’s evidence – which I am satisfied were genuine if misguided. I think that the Mother was very sensitive to signs of even minor injuries on the children. Accordingly, while this in itself is significant as it affects her ability to work constructively with professionals, on balance I do not believe that these were acts of revenge (which would have been much more concerning).

Secondly, the carers reported in Spring 2025 that, on occasion, when they arrived the children were being cared for by the Mother without any other family member being present. Similarly, during an unannounced visit, the LA found S at home alone with the Mother as S was not at school due to illness. There was nothing the Mother could do about that in itself, but she clearly ought to have informed the LA proactively.

Thirdly, in Spring 2025, the Mother and her sister quarrelled and her sister decided no longer to support her. Indeed, the Mother herself alleges that her sister hit her. That removed a very important stabilising feature in the arrangements and led the LA to make provision for support workers to be at the home at all times when the children were not at school.

Fourthly, in Spring 2025, the Mother allowed one of her brothers to supervise S. It transpired that this brother had issues with alcohol abuse, and he admitted that he had drunk ‘two glasses of alcohol’ that day. That in itself is troubling enough. Moreover, I am satisfied that the Mother was then dishonest with the LA (and indeed in her witness statements to the Court) about this. She claimed not to know that he had an alcohol problem when the police records show that the Mother had herself reported her brother’s ‘alcohol problems’ to the police in 2021. Further, at best, she was evasive about the true identity of her brother; at worst, she was deliberately untruthful about it.

Fifthly, despite being fully aware of the LA’s concerns about her volatile relationship with the Father and the impact of domestic abuse on the children, in the spring of 2025, the Mother began to take telephone calls made by him from his prison. Because the duration of such calls was limited by the prison, there were multiple calls each day. The total duration of those calls was very substantial indeed.

I accept the evidence of both parents that this was something arranged by the Father in which the Mother acquiesced. I also accept their evidence that he wanted to receive updates about the children and that he spent at least some of the time talking to the Mother’s sister. However, in my judgment, there can be no doubt that the Father and the Mother spent a great deal of time talking between themselves: indeed, the calls continued after the Mother’s sister had left the home. Moreover, in my judgment, they spent a significant amount of that time discussing matters other than the children: there were simply too many calls of too long a duration over too short a period of time for it to be likely that the calls were solely about the children.

In my judgment, the Mother knew that this would legitimately have caused concern to the LA. That is why she failed to inform the LA about this contact and why the parties used a pseudonym on the prison system.

In the circumstances, it is hardly surprising that, in her final analysis, the Guardian questioned the Mother’s ability to work openly and honestly with professionals in the best interests of the children. She also expressed the view that, although the Mother presented as compliant and generally co-operative, there was a consistent pattern of minimising concerns and offering justifications when there were inconsistencies. As she pointed out, the evidence also establishes that, historically, the Mother would often agree to undertake courses or therapy but then fail to see that through.

Similarly, the social worker was and remains justifiably concerned that the Mother’s lack of honesty and difficulties working with professionals will render ineffective any support which the LA can offer to mitigate the risk of harm to the children.

At this stage, in the absence of a secure family support framework and transparency on the part of the Mother (among other things), none of the social workers involved felt able to recommend that the children remain in the care of their Mother.

Some further concerns continued to arise even after the Guardian’s report. For example:

However, all of that being said, there have also been real steps forward during 2025 which have gathered pace during the second half of the year.

First, and importantly, the Mother’s physical health started to improve.

In her second witness statement in May 2025, the Mother explained that her mobility was improving. Those improvements were limited until the summer of 2025. For example, in June 2025, the Mother was unable to collect S from school when S had a nosebleed because she was unable to get out of bed.

However, in my judgment, improvements over the last few months have been very encouraging. In her fourth witness statement from September 2025, the Mother said and I accept that she could now walk upstairs and was using her wheelchair much less. She was able to attend court all week and walk around with the aid of a stick. The carers logs show that she participates actively in the children’s daily routines: for example, she feeds them, cooks for them, manages their medication and bathes them. In her cross-examination, having been taken to the carers’ logs, the ISW agreed that the Mother had come a long way in terms of her physical ability to care for the children since her earlier reports. In her updating statement, the social worker accepted that the Mother could meet the children’s basic physical needs.

It does not follow that I agree with the Mother that she no longer needs continuous support in relation to the children’s care. I do not doubt her evidence that there are times when the carers are able to sit and read as there is little for them to do. However, it is clear from the carers’ logs that their support is still very much needed. For example, they are required to collect food, medication and other items which are beyond the Mother’s reach and they help with bathing and dressing the children. I have no doubt that there will also still be times when, for example, the children need to be physically restrained or supported in a way which the Mother would not be able to manage by herself. The unpredictability of when additional support may be required and the particular challenges which these children present means, in my judgment, that at the moment some support is still needed all the time when the children are at home.

Nevertheless, there is good reason to think that this positive trajectory will continue. In particular, the Mother is shortly to receive surgery. That poses an issue in itself, as it means that she will be absent in hospital for several days and her recovery period is likely to be a number of weeks. However, although it is never possible to be sure of the results of surgery, there is a reasonable chance that this will result in yet further improvements to the Mother’s physical capacity.

Secondly, the Father was released from prison in July 2025. There is no evidence to suggest that he and the Mother have been in contact, much less sought to recommence their relationship. That in itself is not conclusive proof that it has not happened. However, I accept their evidence that it has not.

I also believe the Mother when she says that she does not intend to revive the relationship. The force with which she gave her evidence on the domestic abuse allegations struck me as genuine and, I accept, reflects a greater level of insight (partly, perhaps, as a result of the courses she has now undertaken). Further, the improvements to the Mother’s health and her experience of the last eleven months or so without the Father’s support is likely to have improved her confidence in her ability to manage without him. Finally, I think it is now clear to both of them that, if they do take steps to recommence the relationship, this will seriously undermine any prospect of the children remaining in the Mother’s care.

The Mother has said that she would like a non-molestation order to secure the position.

This does not, by any means, provide complete reassurance that the parents will not restart their relationship, especially in light of their long history. However, in my judgment, it is a positive step forward.

Thirdly, the Mother has undertaken a significant number of courses and other interventions. She submitted a housing referral for a better property in Spring 2025. She started the Freedom Programme in Spring 2025 and, although her completion of that course was delayed, she has taken steps since to revive it. She has completed an NHS course on supporting children with additional needs. There are other similar steps she has taken as set out in her witness statements. In her final evidence, the LA social worker said that it was positive that the Mother was now engaging with assessments and programmes, although she remained of the view that the Mother would not be able to make necessary changes within the children’s timescales.

I accept the evidence of the LA social worker and the Guardian that the Mother could and should have done all of this a lot sooner. However, it is a positive step that she is doing this now. As I have already explained, I also accept Dr Dowsett’s evidence that the Mother’s physical disabilities were a significant cause of her not seeing things through in the past. The fact that she is doing much better at this now, in line with improvements to her physical capabilities, is consistent with that opinion.

Fourthly, there is clear evidence from the Mother and some of her family members about the support which the latter are able and willing to provide for her. I share the doubts of the LA and the children’s guardian about whether that will actually transpire in practice. I accept their evidence that, all too often in the past, support has been patchy and unreliable. I have been presented with disturbing evidence to the effect that the Mother’s family ceased contact with her – and the children – when she was in a relationship with the Father and not for good reason. I also agree that the particular circumstances of a number of these family members – including where they currently live and their own family and working commitments – mean that the proposed arrangements may be difficult to maintain. I also share their concern that, as I have mentioned above, the Mother has not always been open about when there have been gaps in the support which she was expecting to receive in the past.

The faith that I can place in these proposed arrangements is accordingly limited. However, in my judgment, there is a reasonable basis to think that some of the Mother’s family members will be sufficiently committed to provide a high degree of support which, in time, will significantly reduce the need for carer support even if the Mother’s physical health does not continue to improve. As I have said, I accept the parties’ evidence that they are no longer in a relationship and this removes one historical obstacle (which will hopefully remain the case). I also accept that the limited support provided by one of the family members was caused by a specific family event and obligation. There are legitimate questions about the prioritisation of that over supporting Mother to care for the children. However, the Mother was being supported by support workers during this period and, in any case, as a matter of fact I am satisfied that the family member is now more available.

Fifthly, despite a continuation of some disruption over the last twelve months and the concerns I have mentioned above in relation to particular issues with the children’s education and development, it is clear on the evidence that the children have been settled and have continued to make progress. In her cross-examination, the LA social worker accepted that the children were settled and were in a routine which supports their additional needs. She said that they can predict what is happening in a way which is good for them.

I do not doubt that this is, in significant part, the result of the assistance of support workers. However, back in 2023, Dr Wright expressed the view that the Mother was resilient and knew the importance of the right environment to raise a child. I accept this. In my judgment, there are sound evidential reasons to be cautiously optimistic that, if matters continue along their current trajectory, the Mother will be able to maintain this with less professional carer support.

The LA’s intention is to secure a long-term foster placement for N and S together. This presents serious challenges and there is no dispute that there is a realistic chance that it might prove impossible.

The social worker’s evidence shows that the LA has, to its credit, undertaken extensive searches over a considerable period of time. These have proved fruitless. There have been almost no matches and, on the few occasions when potential placements were identified, the proposed foster carers then withdrew. The social worker’s oral evidence was that a placement was identified on in June 2025 but that the carers later withdrew because the final hearing was put back. I am not sure that this is entirely consistent with what she said in paragraph (b) of her statement which addresses this. However, even assuming this to be true, there are reasons to be pessimistic about another suitable joint placement being identified in the foreseeable future.

The Guardian said in cross-examination that it was proving ‘really hard’ to find foster placements at the moment. In her statement, the social worker said that it was ‘important to acknowledge the realistic challenges in securing a joint placement that can adequately support both children’s complex needs’. In her Sibling Assessment report, the social worker said that ‘meeting both of their needs within a single placement presents significant challenges. Each child requires a high level of emotional, behavioural, and developmental support, which may be difficult to provide adequately in a standard foster care setting, particularly when both children are placed together’.

Accordingly, the LA fairly accepts that there is a risk that the intended placement will simply not transpire within the children’s timescales. The result is that they may need to be separated not only from their Mother and their current home, but also from each other. The social worker’s evidence also fairly acknowledges that it is possible that they might have to move schools. The LA will do its best to avoid all of this but these are real and predictable risks.

At any rate, no placement at all is available now. This has a number of consequences. First, at the present time, the LA’s plan is to place the children in a residential children’s home. The LA has identified a new home which, at present, has no other residents. The setting is accordingly untested. Further, accordingly to publicly available information, the home is registered only for children between the ages of 11 and 17. Nevertheless, I have seen evidence that the staff there have received appropriate training to care for children with similar needs to those of N and S. The social worker has also been in discussions with the home and she considers that it is suitable. The home has assured her that it has extended its registration with Ofsted and that no other residents will be accepted for two months. The LA hopes that, by then, it will have identified a foster placement or placements for the children.

For the reasons I have set out above, I can have no confidence that such placements will be found. If so, either (a) N and S will remain in this children’s home and will probably be joined by new residents, who may be in their late teens and are likely (given the home’s statement of purpose) to present with challenging behaviour and complex needs of their own, or (b) they will need to be moved to a different children’s home, which the Guardian suggested in cross-examination is what would probably happen in these circumstances. They might then have to move again in the future if foster placement(s) are later found.

Further, even on the assumption that their time in a residential setting will indeed only be a short-term bridging placement and a suitable joint foster placement could indeed be found quickly, I would still have grave concerns about this process.

I have already explained that the Guardian’s initial view was that a children’s home was not suitable for these children, and it was not even among the realistic options which she considered later in her initial analysis. In her fourth statement, the social worker said that a residential placement was ‘not the best option as it does not provide consistency of carers or a feel of a family home environment’, although it did have some advantages.

Further, these children have already experienced significant disruption in the past year or so. The Father, who was their primary carer, went to prison. Their aunt, who then played a significant part in their care, left. The upheaval of being removed from their Mother and their home, only to be moved again from their new carers and their new home weeks or months later into another new environment, and then – in N’s case – to move to a new school would be difficult for any children. For children with their particular needs, in my judgment, it can be said with some confidence that the harm would be really significant.

In addition to this, the LA’s proposal was to move them to the residential placement forthwith at the conclusion of the proceedings. Some work had been done to engage with the placement and the children’s schools to think about managing this. However, that work was embryonic and there was no clear or sufficient transition plan.

For the reasons set out above, I am satisfied that there are, broadly speaking, two realistic options available to me. I will consider them in turn against the findings I have made. In so doing, I have taken into account each element of the welfare checklist. However, because of the very considerable overlap between them on the facts of this particular case, I have not sought to set out my reasons by reference to specific sub-paragraphs of the checklist.

This would have the advantage of allowing the children to remain within their birth family. This will promote their sense of identity. It will also provide them with continuity. They have a close emotional bond with the Mother, who provides them with good

However, there are significant disadvantages. The Mother is still unable to provide them with the physical care and safety which they need. There remain significant concerns about her ability or willingness to promote their developmental needs when this might be challenging and to work with professionals openly so as to help to alleviate these concerns: as the ISW said, this is needed in order for the necessary support to be effective (and, I would add, to ensure that the LA can fulfil its protective functions properly). Further, as the social worker said in her statement, ‘parenting children with autism requires more than adequate care’ or – as I would prefer to put it, making the same essential point in a different way – what is adequate care for children with these particular needs is different from what might be adequate care for children without those needs. Further, there remains a concern that the Mother will recommence a relationship with the Father, thereby exposing the children to the risk of further volatility and/or domestic abuse.

This means that for the children to be safe and for their welfare to be promoted, a high level of support will be needed. For the foreseeable future, that is likely to require the continuous presence of another adult while the children are at home. In circumstances in which it remains unclear whether and to what extent the Mother’s family can be relied on to fulfil that function, professional support workers will be required. As the social worker and the Guardian have said, that is intrusive. It is also likely to mean a degree of inconsistency of care as – at least over time – the identities of the carers are likely to change. This might result in confusion and overstimulation for the children.

Further, the LA can reasonably be expected to maintain this state of affairs only for so long and it is likely that there will come a time when it will not be willing to continue to do so. Accordingly, if – by then – the Mother’s health and attitude towards professionals has not improved to a sufficient degree and/or her family does not step up to the mark, there is every possibility that the children will then have to be moved into care.

There is a risk, therefore, that this option would in the end simply delay the implementation of the other option until the children were older. Overall, therefore, they might be subject to more uncertainty in the long term and, because they will be older, they might struggle even more to cope with a fundamental change in their caring arrangements.

Nevertheless, in my judgment, there is a good evidential basis for optimism. The Mother’s health is improving and is likely to continue to improve. I believe that the Mother does understand the importance of being honest and co-operative with professionals, albeit I remain concerned given the (even quite recent) history whether she will act accordingly. As I have explained, I am satisfied that she and the Father mean it when they say they do not intend to get back together and, although it is impossible to be certain, there is good reason to think that they will not. While the Mother’s family have been unreliable (or worse) in the past, it seems to me that the circumstances have changed materially: for example, the Father, who was an issue for them in the past, has gone and the family member mentioned at paragraph 87 above is now more available. Other family members have taken the care to prepare witness statements which set out what they would be willing and able to do.

Furthermore, some of the remaining concerns can be mitigated, albeit not removed, by the making of other orders. I indicated at the hearing that I would require some formal reassurance that the Mother would be open and transparent with the LA and I invited her to consider providing me with an appropriately-worded undertaking. The Father is currently subject to non-molestation orders and I would be sympathetic to any application to extend those.

This would have the advantage of providing confidence that the children would be cared for in an environment free of domestic abuse and by people trained (or otherwise suitable) to meet their particular needs. There is a possibility that they would soon be found stable, long-term placements which would provide them with a lasting, loving home. That might prove to be a placement at which they could remain together, thus limiting the disruption to their family life, and could remain in their current and planned school placements. The current plan is also for them to retain some contact with their parents and (if they are separated) with each other.

However, this option comes with an extremely high level of uncertainty. A suitable long-term foster placement might not be found for a long time, if ever. Even if one is found, there is an appreciable risk that the children will be separated not only from the care of the Mother and their current home, but also from each other and from their schools. Further, even if this option turns out as hoped in the longer-term, the short-term disruption will almost certainly be serious. For children with these particular needs, being moved suddenly into a children’s home and then being moved on again will almost certainly cause them real harm.

As the LA social worker very fairly said in her statement:

In short, this is an option which will almost certainly cause the children some serious emotional harm and might well end up proving highly detrimental. Because of these children’s particular needs and the resulting difficulty in understanding their own wishes and feelings, it can be anticipated that this will be particularly difficult to manage.

Neither of the potential options is without significant risk and, as Mr Tadros on behalf of the children’s guardian said, one way of looking at this case is that it requires the identification of the least bad option. In my judgment, in the circumstances, the children’s welfare is most likely to be protected and promoted if they remain with their Mother with the safeguards which I have mentioned above. I do not consider that it would be necessary or proportionate to remove them from her care as proposed by the LA. Indeed, I positively take the view that, under the prevailing circumstances, their best interests will be served by remaining in their Mother’s care. The essential reasons for this are that (a) the risks and uncertainties of that option are more manageable and controllable, (b) the recent positive steps forward by the children’s family provide a basis (albeit not an entirely solid one) for a degree of confidence that their welfare will be promoted and significant harm and disruption will be avoided, whereas under the LA’s plan some significant harm and disruption is very likely and the future would be very uncertain, and (c) it would enable the children to remain in the care of their birth family.

I recognise that I have reached a view different from that of the social worker and the Guardian. I have no doubt that they have met their responsibilities professionally and conscientiously. Accordingly, I have thought very carefully about my conclusions. However, for the reasons I have set out in this judgment, I remain of the view that I have expressed.

To a certain degree, I consider that the social worker and the children’s guardian’s views have understandably been coloured by their long experience of the Mother in this particular case. A significant part of that experience (although by no means the only important part) has been a distinct lack of openness and trust from the Mother and, as I have explained, some dishonesty. On the one hand, that lived experience is something which gives them a perspective which I cannot have. However, on the other hand, I think that it might have made it more difficult for them to absorb and to adjust their thinking in light of the developments which I have set out above, many of which are very recent.

Although both of them recognised that the Mother’s physical health had improved, I am not sure how far they felt able to accept (as I have done) that this would be likely to result in meaningful improvements not only to her ability to care for the children directly but also to her ability and willingness to pursue and follow through on training and therapies and to work with professionals. I also detected a tendency to reach conclusions against the Mother which, sometimes, were wrong or unsupported by the evidence. For example, the children’s guardian maintained at the hearing that the children still did not have a routine at home, whereas the evidence is that they do now have a fairly good routine and there is no evidence that the Mother was not helping to maintain that routine (albeit with much assistance). The LA social worker gave evidence to the effect that there had been breaches of the non-molestation order against the Father when, in fact, there have been no such breaches. She also asserted that the Mother had been calling the Father in prison when, in fact, the evidence is clear that it was he who was telephoning her.

None of this is intended as a criticism of either the children’s guardian or the social worker. As I have said, I do not question their professionalism or honesty and, insofar as there has been some breakdown in trust, the fault for that lies primarily if not entirely with the Mother. However, I do think that there has been such a breakdown and it is notable, perhaps, that the ISW – who said that the Mother had worked well with her – was much more open to the conclusion which I have reached. Partly for this reason, I suggested at the hearing that the LA should consider appointing a different social worker to work with the family moving forwards. This is no reflection on the current social worker but it would, in my view, be more likely to produce good results for these children.

I would invite the LA to (continue to) consider my conclusions and reasons and to confirm whether it would be willing to provide continuing support to the necessary level and to work with the Mother and her family moving forwards. I would invite the Mother to consider agreeing to the undertaking I have mentioned in paragraph 107 above and for both the Mother and the Father to agree an extension to the non-molestation orders. Provided that these steps are agreed and/or taken, I would dismiss the LA’s application. If there are any issues with any of those steps, then it will be necessary to consider how to respond. However, it is important for all parties to appreciate that my firm view, albeit one reached after anxious consideration of a difficult set of circumstances, is that (a) under the current circumstances these children’s welfare will best be served by them remaining in their Mother’s care (with supervised contact with the Father) with safeguards and support but also that (b) this places a heavy burden on the Mother and her family to cooperate with full transparency and sincerity with the LA and to make good on what they have said to me about the way they will conduct themselves moving forwards.