IN THE FAMILY COURT AT East London
(Sitting at Croydon)
Before :
DJ Keating
Between :
London Borough of Bromley | Applicant |
- and – | |
Maria -and- Frank -and- Stevie (by his Children’s Guardian) 3rd Respondent | 1st Respondent 2nd Respondent |
Hearing date: 3 and 4 December 2025
Approved Judgment
This judgment was handed down orally on 4th December 2025 and subsequently by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives. The published judgment will be anonymised by changing the names of all of the family members.
DJ Keating:
The application
On 31.10.24 LB Bromley applied for a Care Order in respect of Stevie. This is therefore week 57 of the proceedings. In part, it took a long time to get the Family Drug and Alcohol Court (FDAC) assessment started, and the assessment itself is a long process. Stevie needs and deserves a final decision without any further delay.
Stevie is 14.
In 2019 Stevie and his older brother, Bobby, were the subject of child arrangements proceedings between their parents. Those proceedings last for 62 weeks, and whilst they included allegations of domestic abuse, I am told that no findings of fact were ever made. Those proceedings ended with their father having indirect contact only to the boys. It was only in the course of these proceedings that direct contact resumed. Bobby is now an adult.
The parties, representatives and their position
L B Bromley is represented by Ms Folkes, counsel. It says that the section 31 Children Act ‘threshold’ criteria can be proved for Stevie, but that the best final order would be for the Court to make a Special Guardianship Order in favour of Stevie’s paternal grandparents, George and Lily. If the Court makes that order, L B Bromley would not invite the Court to make a public law order.
Stevie’s mother is Maria, she is represented by Mr Chalmers, counsel. She had cared for Stevie until February 2025 and would like him to return to her care.
Stevie’s father is Frank, he is represented by Mr Moss, counsel. He agrees with the LA plan.
Stevie is represented by his solicitor, Mr Dobson. His CG is Catherine O’Callaghan. She supports the LA plan. The final hearing was listed on dates when she was away, but as Maria had not, by the time of the pre-trial hearing on 21.11.25, filed her evidence the Court gave her the chance to make an application to cross examine the CG (which would have necessitated an adjournment to the final hearing). In the event, Maria did not apply so this final hearing took place without the CG’s analysis being challenged by cross-examination.
Stevie’s paternal grandmother, Lily, attended the final hearing with my permission.
Introduction
The relationship between Stevie’s parents is very strained indeed. I erected a screen in Court and had them enter and leave the Courtroom separately so that they would not see each other.
Each of Stevie’s parents have longstanding substance misuse problems. Neither could say that they have yet fully addressed those problems. Maria has been assessed as not able to meet Stevie’s needs by an Independent Social Worker, Dr Anderson in August 2024, and the FDAC assessment concluded in July 2025 that it did not recommend that Stevie returned to Maria’s care.
Frank was assessed by Dr Anderson as able to meet Stevie’s needs, albeit that subsequent substance misuse on his part shook her confidence somewhat. The CG has reservations about Dr Anderson’s conclusions but that issue may not, in the end, matter because all parties apart from Maria agree that the right outcome for Stevie is that he should live with his grandparents.
The trial bundle does not contain any evidence from Maria in these proceedings. She has submitted two letters – one at the start to explain why she missed early appointments with the FDAC team, and a second on 2.12.25, the day before the final hearing. She intended that to be regarded as a witness statement, though it does not contain a statement of truth. The Court had repeatedly granted extensions of time for her evidence.
Maria did not reply to the final LA Threshold document, though she had replied to the interim document at the start of the proceedings: in that, she denied some of the threshold allegations.
Bobby accompanied Maria to the pre-trial review and told the parties that he wanted to apply for Stevie to live with him. No such application has been received. Bobby also wrote a letter which Maria’s solicitor uploaded to the Court portal at the same time as they uploaded Maria’s letter. No application has ever been made for permission to rely on evidence from Bobby.
I granted Maria permission to rely on her letter and to treat it as her written evidence. There were no attachments (some were mentioned in her letter) and so I did not give permission for the documents which were not attached to be relied upon. She did not seek to rely on Bobby’s letter as evidence and he did not attend the hearing or make an application, though I had read his letter.
Issues
From that introduction I turn to the law. As this is an application for a care order, I must apply section 31 and section 1 of the Children Act 1989. In a case called Re DAM (children) [2018] EWCA Civ 386, the Court of Appeal confirms that the essential questions the Court must ask itself are: What are the facts? Has the threshold been crossed? If so, what order is in the child’s best interests? Is that outcome necessary and proportionate to the problem? The Court must have regard to the matters set out in s1(3) Children Act 1989.
Section 31 says,
“A court may only make a care order or supervision order if it is satisfied -
that the child concerned is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm; and
that the harm, or likelihood of harm, is attributable to -
the care given to the child, or likely to be given to him if the order were not made, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give to him; …”
These provisions are commonly called the threshold criteria. In brief, it means I must conclude that Stevie has suffered or is likely to suffer significant harm because of poor parenting. If I conclude that threshold is crossed, I can go on to make a care order or a supervision order if, but only if, I consider that is in Stevie’s best interests and it is necessary and proportionate to the harm or risk of harm.
Even though there are some disputes about exactly how the threshold criteria are established, all parties agree that the threshold is crossed in Stevie’s case. I will deal further, below, with precisely how that is so in Stevie’s case.
If I am satisfied that the threshold criteria are made out I must go on to consider section 1 and the welfare checklist. At this second stage Stevie’s welfare is my paramount consideration.
Evidence
I heard oral evidence from Ms Alli, the social worker, and from Maria. I have a bundle of 925 pages of documents and the letter from Maria. I have in the bundle the written expert reports of Dr McDermott (who undertook a psychiatric evaluation of Maria in July 2024), Dr Anderson, who did parenting assessments of both parents, the FDAC team, the various drug test results and the CG’s final analysis none of which were challenged.
Ms Alli was a clear, calm, professional social work witness who acknowledged fully the love that Maria has for Stevie, the positive aspects of her parenting of him to date, and of his love for Maria.
Maria was clear that she had benefitted from her work with the FDAC team, saying “FDAC changed my thinking”. She knew and understood that FDAC had not recommended that Stevie be returned to her care, but had not read their final report. I am not clear why she had not done so – her solicitor had it from late July 2025. I adjourned part way through her evidence to give her time to read it, and permitted her to discuss the report with her barrister, to help her be able to absorb and understand it, but not to prepare her for any questions that might be asked.
Maria wants to achieve sobriety. She knows that she has lapsed in the past, but told me that she has re-engaged with AA and is about 6 weeks into its ‘90 meetings in 90 days’ programme. She has begun to re-engage with CGL (which operates the drug and alcohol service in her Borough). She told me that she has now been abstinent for roughly 2 months. She accepted that there was no scientific drug and alcohol testing to verify that.
Maria can speak quickly and divert to tangents when speaking. She was assaulted at about midnight on the night of 8/9 October as she walked home from the local train station. She says that had been to an AA meeting, and then went for a coffee with a friend, which turned out to be a Bailey’s Irish Coffee. She denied that she was intoxicated, but I see from the Police reports that the Police officers who attended that they considered that she had consumed alcohol and was struggling to explain events in sequence. Their notes later say that she was ‘drunk’. Maria explained that she was in shock from a nasty attack, which explains any confusion. I can understand that, but it seems to me unlikely that the Police would have recorded as they did had Maria simply had one Irish coffee on the way home from an AA meeting. That reduced somewhat the confidence I had in the accuracy of Maria’s recall of events.
Maria told me that she knows, because of an important event, that she had stopped drinking and using cocaine by 13 October 2025, though she does not recall the exact date. As Ms Folkes says, she also told me that she had consumed alcohol as recently as 16 October, because on that day Maria made an allegation that she had been assaulted by someone who had stolen money from her by snatching her phone and using it to make a funds transfer without Maria’s consent. The Police told the LA that Maria was under the influence of alcohol at the time of that assault.
That means that I can have little confidence about the date that Maria says she has been abstinent since. Maria’s own account on that point is contradictory. There is no objective scientific evidence to support Maria’s reported achievement of sobriety.
She also told me that about 3-4 weeks ago, so in early November 2025, she and Bobby had an argument, each called the Police and she was arrested because she was in possession of cocaine. She told me the Police had NFA’d the possession charge, and the cocaine belonged to a friend who had been at the house but who had popped out to the shop shortly before the argument. Maria knew that the friend had used cocaine in the past but said that she did not know that she had left cocaine at Maria’s house whilst she popped to the shop.
Mr Moss suggests that account is simply an excuse to try to avoid the conclusion that Maria was in possession of cocaine, presumably intending to use it, as recently as 3 weeks ago. Assuming Maria’s account to be true, it worries me that Maria has until recently and whilst embarking on a 90-day AA programme, allowed into her home a woman whom she knew to be a cocaine user, and who felt sufficiently relaxed to leave her own cocaine in Maria’s house.
I applaud Maria for having stopped drinking and using cocaine as she says to me she has. As she puts it in her letter,
“There are more details about various concerns that I could continue to speak of, however, I believe it is more important for me to focus on my own recovery and continued progress, as this is key to being able to care for my children again”
It is plain to me that her recent sobriety is good progress but it is untested and it is still relatively fragile. She has only just re-engaged with her treatment service. It seems to me that it is going to take quite a long time, and need quite a lot of help from her local treatment agency and probably also AA or CA before Maria will be able to say, with confidence, that she feels that her addictions are properly under control.
It is also plain that until as recently as 3 weeks ago there have continued to be calls from Maria’s home to the Police arising from conflicts and allegations of assault by both Bobby and Maria. This gives little confidence that the instability and unhappiness which is so often associated with significant substance misuse has yet abated from the home that Maria wants Stevie to return to.
Factual findings
If there is a disputed fact, it is for the person who says that the disputed fact happened to prove that it did. They must do so on evidence, and they must show on that evidence that it is more likely than not that the fact happened.
Maria does not accept that her anxiety and use of alcohol has had an adverse impact on her ability to safeguard and protect Stevie. Her letter does not really explain why. It is plain from the social work evidence and the report of Dr McDermott that the local authority’s assertion on this point is made out.
Maria denies that she was ‘under the influence’ when Police attended her home on 15.7.24. The LA relies on a Police report which says “both parties (Maria and her then partner) applied to have been drinking alcohol…”. The word “applied” is obviously a typographical error and from context appears to have been intended to read “appeared” which would be a common police phraseology – the report makes no sense otherwise. I can see no reason why the Police - who are well versed in assessing whether people are under the influence of alcohol when they attend a reported domestic incident as they did here – would say that unless it genuinely appeared to the officers who attended that this was the case. On the balance of probabilities I am satisfied that the LA has shown that this element of its final threshold document has been made out.
On 14.12.23 the then social worker spotted 4 (presumably empty) bottles of Irish cream liqueur in the recycling bins at Maria’s property. She says that she had shared recycling bins with other properties and these bottles weren’t hers. Whilst I entirely accept that the social worker saw the bottles as asserted, they cannot show who consumed the contents, and on that basis I would remove that entry from the threshold findings.
Maria accepts that on 11.8.23 she had taken some old (unspecified) medication. She must accept that it had some kind of effect on her, because the social worker who visited recorded that she was under the influence of alcohol. Maria’ denied at the time that she was in fact intoxicated. Whether she was intoxicated by alcohol or some other form of medication, if Maria knew it was out of date – and she said so at the time – she should not have been taking it, and it cannot have been used in accordance with a prescription if it was a prescribed medicine. If it is being implied that the medication being out of date somehow gave it unexpectedly powerful effects, that seems to me inherently unlikely. On the evidence before me I am satisfied that Maria was intoxicated by something on 11.8.23 and that she said this was out of date medication, so I am content that the entry in the final threshold document can remain.
There was a curious and partly disputed incident on 21.7.20. It is common ground that as a result, Maria was found by police to be in possession of cocaine. In her response to the interim threshold document Maria says that she “didn’t use the cocaine and was just given it when helping out”. To be blunt, she was prevented from using it because the Police found it, and whether she paid for it or was given it is not really the point.
The threshold finding sought on this point is that on 21.7.20 Maria was “observed to be intoxicated and found to be in possession of cocaine”. The source material for that is the police report, which indicates that Maria’s father had called Police because he perceived that she was about to drive a car after she had been drinking: he had removed the car keys from her and she had assaulted him. I am not satisfied that the evidence is sufficient to form the view that Maria was “observed to be intoxicated” by anyone. The Police don’t record that the officers observed that. Maria’s father appears to have formed the view that she would have been over the legal drink drive limit, but that is quite low, and not the same as observing her to be intoxicated. It may well have that meaning, but it is for the LA to prove the allegation, and on the evidence before me I am not satisfied that it has shown that it is more likely than not that Maria was “observed to be intoxicated and”. I will therefore delete those words from the final threshold document.
The final threshold document includes more examples than the interim document did. Maria has not responded to it (though Frank has done so). I bear in mind that I cannot simply conclude that the threshold criteria are established just because some or all of them are not challenged: Re D (Threshold Findings and Final Orders at IRH) [2025] EWCA Civ 1362. I have therefore been through the document and I am satisfied that, aside from the matters set out above, there is cogent evidence before the Court on which I could properly find each item is proved on the balance of probabilities. I note that Frank has offered some comments on some items, but he does not dispute the finding as asserted.
I therefore find that the threshold criteria, amended as described above, are made out as set out in the LA final threshold document so far as Stevie is concerned.
That isn’t really the main point the parties need me to resolve: each agreed that the threshold criteria were made out in some way. The main issue is ‘what is the outcome that is in the best interests of Stevie?’, closely followed by ‘what order would best secure that?’.
Maria’s letter makes some serious allegations about Frank: for example, that he has killed someone and was able to get off the subsequent charge, but brags that he did in fact commit the crime. It would be unfair for me to conclude that this was true, because the evidence has come in the form of a letter the day before the trial, and is vague as to almost every detail, unsupported by any corroborative evidence and because Frank has, effectively, not been able to defend himself against that sort of allegation. An allegation of that gravity would have needed to have been spelled out very clearly, police and other disclosure obtained, and Frank would have needed a detailed opportunity to defend himself: none of that has happened.
On the morning of 4 December I noticed that the Court’s electronic record included a statement from Maria dated 13.3.25 that had not been included in the bundle, which contained further allegations about Frank. I raised that with the parties. Mr Dobson reminded me of the terms of the order of 14.3.25, and told me that his recollection was that Maria and Frank had decided not to pursue allegations against each other in these proceedings. No one disagreed with his recollection. Mr Chalmers agreed on Maria’s behalf that I should leave Maria’s statement of 13 March on the Court file, and not rely on it at this hearing.
Frank has a significant criminal history and that includes significant criminal convictions arising from his conduct towards Maria. That engages PD12J and PD3AA. In some ways that significant criminal history is far less to the forefront of this case than it might have been. I want Maria to know that it has not been ignored or forgotten. I cannot, though, go further than the evidence that is before me: I can see that she has made allegations that go beyond his convictions, but she has not pursued findings about those allegations in the 2019 proceedings or these proceedings, so I cannot conclude that her allegations are true or not true.
The realistic options
There are two realistic options for Stevie:
Return to the care of Maria; or
Remain in the care of Frank’s parents.
Stevie’s wish would be divide his time between Maria and Frank on a 50/50 basis. Frank doesn’t have his own accommodation, the risk of parental conflict would be very high and there would be a high risk of Stevie getting caught in the crossfire, sooner or later. None of Social Services, Maria, Frank or the Children’s Guardian think that is a realistic option, and Stevie himself recognises that is the case. I would like him to understand that I have listened to and thought about his wishes.
Maria says that some Police Officers have said that there are far worse cases where a child has stayed with their parent than Stevie’s case. I understand her point of view about that, but it fundamentally misunderstands the approach I must take. I am not required to decide whether Maria’s care of Stevie has been in the top 2% (or whatever) of problematic parenting. I am simply required to evaluate what is now in Stevie’s best interests.
Maria also says that as Frank lives with his parents, placing Stevie with them inevitably means involving him fully in Stevie’s life. Maria is deeply unhappy that Frank’s parents have tolerated what she sees as Frank’s shortcomings – for example, his failure to pay all the child maintenance he should have over the years, or of abusing, harassing or stalking her, or of his own misuse of substances. There has been an estrangement between Bobby and Frank’s family since an incident where Bobby is said to have become inebriated at a family gathering, and a later assault which Bobby says was carried out by people associated with Frank’s family. So far as I am aware there have been no prosecutions arising, and the evidence before me does not enable me to form any view about the truth of those allegations.
The advantages of Stevie living with Maria would, it seems to me, be the resumption of the relationship between Stevie and Bobby, and the resumption without supervision of the loving relationship between Stevie and Maria. As everyone involved in the case has told me, both Stevie and Bobby are eloquent and impressive young men who have obviously received some good parenting, which must be largely down to Maria, at least since 2019.
The disadvantages would be the risk of a resumption by Maria of her use of alcohol and/or cocaine, and all the consequent chaos and conflict associated with it. Ms O’Callaghan is worried that Bobby may be at risk of developing his own substance misuse problem. It would also mean that the Court would need to determine the arrangements for the future relationship between Stevie and Frank – though that should be relatively straightforward to achieve
The advantages of Stevie living with Frank’s parents would be that he has settled well and is thriving there; his school attendance has been excellent; he would maintain a relationship with Maria by way of contact which would be supervised by a family member other than Frank for the time being; he could maintain a relationship with Bobby by communicating directly with him (and given that Bobby lives close to Stevie’s school, no doubt they will meet as and when they want to); his relationship with Frank will develop; Frank’s parents have already proved that they are able to protect Stevie from Frank’s substance misuse and the safeguarding plan for this has been tested over the last 9 months, and this is Stevie’s preference of the realistic options.
I note that only a few weeks ago Stevie noticed that Maria was under the influence of alcohol and asked that contact be stopped – that this was then secured shows the need for supervision and the protection this can secure for Stevie, which is an advantage of that arrangement continuing until Maria has been able to show that she has been consistently free from substance misuse.
The disadvantages of Stevie living with Frank’s parents are that his relationship with Maria will be limited to contact that is supervised and will be for the near future; his relationship with Bobby will be informal and may be low key, especially for so long as Bobby remains estranged from Frank’s family; he has a longer journey to school; and the various reservations that Maria raises in her letter. I also bear in mind, as PD12J requires, the impact on Maria that there will be if I conclude that Stevie should live in the same household as her convicted abuser. I know that she will feel disempowered, frightened and disbelieved if I reach those conclusions, and that will make it hard for her to give Stevie the emotional space to feel that he can say he is happy there. The making of an order that gives parental responsibility to Franks parents over and above Frank and Maria will only help a little bit, because (a) Frank will live in the home and (b) Frank’s parents were recorded by Dr Anderson when she assessed Frank as saying that they thought Frank’s convictions were unjust. They therefore will likely exacerbate rather then reduce Maria’s feelings of unfairness and disempowerment. The impact on Maria will have an impact on Stevie, who must be very aware of the level of animosity that exists between his parents.
There is also a property dispute – as I understand it, between Frank and Maria’s family. There are also enforcement steps underway in respect of an alleged and significant backlog of child maintenance. The financial disputes between Frank and Maria and their respective families heightens the tensions and scope for disagreement in the future.
Lily confirmed to me that she and her husband were happy to be appointed as Special Guardians. They have had the benefit of legal advice as to the ways in which a Court could secure Stevie living in their home. They have seen the support plan and agree with it, save that financial support has now been confirmed to them by Social Services, and they are happy with that.
What is inStevie’s best interests?
Section 1(3) of the Children Act 1989 says that I must have regard, when moving to consider Stevie’s welfare to the following matters in particular:
his ascertainable wishes and feelings (considered in the light of his age and understanding);
I see from Ms O’Callaghan’s report, with which Ms Alli agreed, that Stevie would choose to live 50/50 with his parents. If that wasn’t possible – and he accepts that it is unlikely to be presently – he would like to stay living with his grandparents. He has been living with them since February 2025, when he and Bobby were taken into Police Protection following a conflict between Maria and Bobby whilst Maria was drunk.
Mr Dobson felt that Stevie would have been able to instruct him directly, had there been any conflict between Stevie’s wishes and the instructions of his CG. In the event there wasn’t a conflict. Stevie’s wishes and feelings will carry a lot of weight given his age and that understanding of the merits of the possible options.
his physical, emotional and educational needs;
Stevie has all the needs of a 14 year old boy. He is active, loves playing football. He has made his GCSE choices, and whilst Maria might have preferred some different choices, they were Stevie’s choices. He needs to have a relationship with his mother, with whom he had lived until February this year, and with Bobby. Remaining living in his paternal grandparents’ home will mean that those relationships are inhibited, and this is a disadvantage of that plan. Whilst Maria’s contact with him does, on the evidence before me, need to remain supervised by a family member for now, that supervisor must not be Frank. Stevie’s school attendance is good and he is said to be thriving in his grandparents care. He also needs to be protected from Frank’s substance misuse (which is not yet resolved) and Stevie’s grandparents have proved themselves able to work with social services and to put that protection in place.
the likely effect on him of any change in his circumstances;
Stevie would, if I made the order social services seek, be relieved that his preferred realistic option had come to pass, and to be able to see an end to Court proceedings and social work involvement (though he may be entitled to some support as he approaches independence). He has been the subject of a court case for a large proportion of his childhood.
If I concluded that he should return to the care of his mother’s house he would be pleased because he loves her and Bobby, but I think he would be very worried about the prospect of her resuming alcohol and/or cocaine misuse. He would be adversely affected by the ongoing and repeated incidences of conflict between Maria and Bobby which continue to require Police attendance to Maria’s home at a worrying frequency, including within the last month. At the moment the risks of both of those things happening are too high, and the impact on Stevie would be harmful.
his age, sex, background and any characteristics of his which the court considers relevant;
I have already mentioned those I think are relevant.
any harm which he has suffered or is at risk of suffering;
This is covered by my threshold findings. I am very worried that Maria’s abstinence – which I warmly applaud – has been only very recently secured. She has been through the rehabilitation and abstinence journey enough to know that it is not easy and can take time. As good as her recent progress is, it is very early days and her progress is fragile. The risk of lapse remains unacceptably high for Stevie. The ongoing conflicts with Bobby, which have required Police call outs within the last month and after Maria reports achieving sobriety, remain a risk and Stevie deserves to be protected from experiencing more exposure to such conflicts.
how capable each of his parents, and any other person in relation to whom the court considers the question to be relevant, is of meeting his needs;
Everyone says that Stevie and Bobby are impressive and eloquent young men. There is no doubt that they have received much positive parenting. Recognising the positive parenting they have received does not diminish the problems that there have been.
Frank has been assessed as able to meet Stevie’s needs, but I share Ms O’Callaghan’s reservations about that, not least because Frank’s use of substances remains unresolved.
Maria has been assessed by Dr Anderson, and by FDAC, as not currently able to meet Stevie’s needs. I have listened to all that she has said, but I have not been persuaded that there is any good reason for me to disagree with that expert advice, which was not challenged by cross-examination.
Lily and George have been assessed as able to meet Stevie’s needs. I hear Maria’s reservations about that. I have not dealt in granular detail with each precise point, but I have considered them all. Allowing Stevie, aged 13 to go to London unaccompanied, or to spend time at Bluewater without adult supervision is not, without more, necessarily problematic without further context: I agree with Ms Alli’s assessment that these were not issues of concern, without further context, for example. I know that Maria says she has an intimate video which she is deeply critical of Frank about. I was not invited to view it and I suspect that it would have been unlikely to have passed the evidential test set by the High Court when considering the use of such images in a family court. I suggest to Maria that she should delete the images entirely. In my view Frank’s convictions are a matter of record and should be acknowledged rather than minimised. Having considered all of the points that Maria makes, I do not consider that any of them or them combined is enough to overturn the conclusion of the assessors that Lily and George are able to care for Stevie. In my judgment, they are, and he has thrived since being placed in their care.
the range of powers available to the court under this Act in the proceedings in question.
I could make no order – this would leave Maria and Frank to resolve where Stevie lived and how contact would work. Given the extent and breadth of the issues that there are between them, that would leave Stevie at risk of an unacceptable tug of war and conflict.
I could make an order that Stevie lives with Maria, or Frank, or his parents. If I made a lives with order I could also make a supervision order, requiring social services to be involved for a further year. Stevie does not want ongoing social work involvement.
As Frank does not have his own home, a lives with order in his favour would be inappropriate, and it would generate significant unresolved contact problems. I could make an order that Stevie live with Maria: this is the outcome she really seeks. But that comes with all the disadvantages outlined above. I could make a lives with order in favour of George and Lily but, as compared to a Special Guardianship Order, that would have some marked disadvantages:
No one has suggested it is suitable;
It is not the order that they seek;
It would leave them sharing parental responsibility with Maria and Frank for all matters apart from where Stevie lives, which is a recipe for conflict. Whilst I could make an order regulating Maria’s contact which could mirror the LA care plan, there would still be a great deal of other potential conflict.
It would last until Stevie is 16, rather than 18, unless I went on to find that the circumstances were exceptional. I could, in my view, do so on the facts of Stevie’s case.
Maria could apply for a contact order which Lily and George would need to handle without legal aid, the LA or a CG.
There wouldn’t be the financial support that would accompany a Special Guardianship Order.
I could make a Special Guardianship Order, which would last until Stevie was 18. It would not remove the parental responsibility that Frank and Maria have, but it would enable Lily and George to exercise parental responsibility in the way they thought fit, without the need to consult Maria or Frank. It would enable them to take steps to protect Stevie from Frank’s use of substances.
It would be rare, but possible, to make a supervision order with a Special Guardianship Order. However, that would need the clearest articulation. Generally, if I thought a Supervision Order were needed, that would tend to suggest that the Special Guardianship Order was not the best outcome.
Lastly, I could make a Care Order. The LA care Plan for Stevie means he would stay with Frank’s parents, but social work involvement would continue, something Stevie doesn’t want. No one has argued that making a care order would be the best outcome to this case.
Conclusions & Order
Maria’s love for Stevie could not be in doubt. She knows that her recently achieved sobriety is still at an early, fragile stage. I can see no reason to disagree with the expert evidence before me, which is that she is not able adequately to care for Stevie now, and there is no sign that she will be in a position to do so in the near future.
For all the reasons I have set out above, I am inexorably and inevitably drawn to the conclusion that it is clearly in Stevie’s best interests for him to remain in the care of Frank’s parents and for this to be secured by the making of a Special Guardianship Order in their favour.
I do not see the need for a public law order in addition.
There is no order for costs apart from detailed assessment of the costs of the publicly funded parties.
Transparency
It is in the public interest for the decisions of the Court and the reasons for them to be publicly available. For that reason, a transcript of this judgment will be published in due course. However, it is very strongly in Stevie’s best interests that he cannot be identified if I do so, and that means that he and all family members must not be identifiable from the published judgment. I will therefore circulate a version which is anonymised – all the names of family members will be changed. I ask all advocates and parties to check that I have not missed any identifying details. If I have proposed an alternative name which, for any reason, is not appropriate, please let me know.