East Sussex County Council v The Mother & Ors (Children Staying at Home Under a Care Order)

In this case, I am concerned with what is best for these children. Their welfare is my paramount consideration. Having heard submissions on behalf of each of the parties at this Issues Resolution Hearing, I shall now deliver judgment. The parties were in agreement that this hearing should be utilised as a Final Hearing and that it should proceed on the basis of submissions.

The fair thing to do is to tell the parties, and particularly the mother, what it is I have decided straight away. I have decided that I need to make a Care Order with the children staying at home.

It is not a decision I have reached particularly easily. I have given anxious consideration to the risks of harm that clearly exist for the children in following this course. It is an exceptional course. As I indicated to counsel during the course of submissions, I cannot recall ever making a Care Order and endorsing a plan involving a child remaining at home with a parent during over nearly six years of sitting in the Family Court. For a long time I had, frankly, struggled to think of a situation in which I would likely endorse such a plan.

The Local Authority and the Guardian are aligned in their argument that the only order that I can make which meets the needs to these children is a Care Order and the only plan for them which I can endorse capable of meeting their needs is that they remain in the care of their mother at home. The mother opposes the making of a Care Order and says that making a Supervision Order alongside a Child Arrangement Order is the course which best meets the children’s needs. The father is largely neutral on the point. All parties agree that the children remaining in their mother’s care is what best aligns with their welfare best interests.

I have reminded myself of what the President of the Family Division said in JW (Child at Home under Care Order) [2023] EWCA Civ 944. The President’s judgment, Macur and Coulson LJJ agreeing, began with the following words:

“For some years it has been recognised that a difference exists in the approach taken by courts in different regions when determining whether a final care order, supervision order or no order should be made when care proceedings conclude with a plan for the subject child to be placed, or remain living, at home with their parent(s). Broadly speaking, if a line is drawn from Hull down to Bristol and beyond, courts in England and Wales that are North and West of that line will often make a care order in such cases, in contrast to courts South and East of the line where normally a supervision order or no public law order will be made.”

Having sat in the Family Court since 2019 in predominantly Birmingham, then at the Central Family Court London, and now in Sussex, my not having previously made a Care Order in which a child has remained at home fits, broadly speaking, with the President’s opening words in JW.

The President went on to say:

“My experience is that the judges who sit on one side of the line or the other are confident that the approach taken in their area is the correct one. The difference of approach is striking, and its existence has become something of a hot potato, and increasingly so as Family Courts across England and Wales strive, once again, to conclude public law care proceedings within the statutory 26 week time limit set by Children Act 1989.”

It seems to me that there is a need to guard against the incredibly important desire to finish cases within the 26 week statutory time limit leading to decisions being made that children should remain at home under a Care Order under the false pretence that somehow that is much safe for the children used in place of a full and vigorous analysis of the various options for them, including the need for removal from the care of their parent or parents.

I have thought about what is said in s33 Children Act 1989 about what the effect of a Care Order is, and of course have considered, particularly in respect of Supervision Orders, what is it is said under section 35 a Supervision Order should do.

The President in paragraph 16 in JW says, and I quote:

“In contrast to a care order, a child under a supervision order is not being ‘looked after’ by the local authority and the authority neither has parental responsibility for the child, nor the power to direct how those who do have parental responsibility may exercise it. By CA 1989, Sch 3, para 2, a supervision order may require the child to comply with any directions given from time to time by the supervising officer. If the person responsible for the child’s care (for example a parent) consents, the supervision order may include a requirement for the responsible person to comply with directions and other requirements.”

So, the responsible person is the parent as opposed to the Local Authority, and there is no express requirement for the Supervising Officer to visit the child during the life of the order, or to keep the plan for the child under review.

The President in JW provides a really helpful summary of the developing case law in respect of the ‘Care Order or Supervisions Order?’ question from paragraph 18 onwards. I do not repeat that within this judgment but have considered it. At paragraph 28 onwards, the President provides a helpful summary of key principles having considered the statutory scheme and the case law as whole:

“28.

In summary, looking at the statutory scheme and the case law as a whole, the following is clear:

i)

making a care order with a subject child placed at home in the care of their parent(s) is plainly permissible within the statutory scheme and express provision is made for such circumstances in CA 1989, s 22C and in the placement regulations;

ii)

the early post-CA 1989 authorities established that a care plan for placement at home was an appropriate outcome where the facts justified it, without the need for exceptional circumstances;

iii)

the analysis of Hale J/LJ in Oxfordshire and in Re O laid particular weight upon the need for the authority to have power to remove the child instantly if circumstances required it, or to plan for the child to be placed outside the family;

iv)

since Oxfordshire and Re O, the High Court decision in Re DE, containing guidance endorsed by the President, has been widely accepted so that, in all but a true emergency, the local authority power to remove a child from their home under a care order should not be exercised without giving parents an opportunity to bring the issue before a court;

v)

the difference concerning removal of a child from home either under a care order or where there is no care order is now largely procedural. In all but the most urgent cases, the decision on removal will ultimately be taken within the umbrella of court proceedings, rather than administratively within a local authority;

vi)

sharing of parental responsibility by the local authority with parents is an important element, but, as Hale J/LJ stressed, the fact that considerable help and advice may be needed over a prolonged period is not a reason, in itself, for making a care order;

vii)

it is wrong to make a care order in order to impose duties on a local authority or use it to encourage them to perform the duties that they have to a child in need;

viii)

the protection of the child is the decisive factor, but proportionality is key when making the choice between a care and supervision order for a child who is placed at home;

ix)

supervision orders should be made to work, where that is the proportionate form of order to make.”

Of course, I have reminded myself as well of the Public Law Working Group’s Supervision Order Report (24 April 2023) which sets out that Supervision Orders need to be more robust and more needs to be done under them than is currently the case if they are actually going to achieve what they were designed to achieve for the children they are meant to benefit.

Both the President in JW, and the Public Law Working Group in the guidance, make really clear that Care Orders with children at home are likely to be extremely rare. The Public Law Working Group says that Care Orders at home should only be made:

“Rarely and in exceptional circumstances.”

The President endorsed that as a good guidance in JW.

A Care Order should not be used to make the Local Authority do things that they should otherwise do under a less interventionist order, and the Local Authority must, if they need to, provide a child with the support and services they need, frankly, whatever order is or is not in place.

“Exceptionality” is not of course a test. It is just a description of how rarely something happens. The law that I apply is deciding what course best meets the welfare best interests of the children is straightforward. I am not going to dwell on the background to these proceedings in any great detail. Firstly, there is no need as there is broad agreement as what has occurred before and how the hcildren have been harmed by it. Secondly, it is likely that this judgment will be published in due course and specific detail may lead to the identification of the children.

There is agreement in this case that the threshold criteria are met and that, if it is necessary and proportionate to do so, I may make a public law order. As I found within my last order, the children have suffered significant emotional harm and are likely to suffer significant emotional harm, and physical harm, arising from their parent’s poor mental health, poor emotional regulation, and punitive parenting.

It is right that the majority of threshold relates to the behaviours of the father. The father has acted abusively towards the mother and the children. There is a smaller part of threshold which also relates to the mother. However, there is a key difference in my judgment between the accepted behaviours of both which have caused significant harm and have exposed the children to the risk of significant harm. The mother is vulnerable herself. She has lived through a number of extremely traumatic experiences as a child and an adult and has been the victim of domestic abuse at the hands of the father. As a child she had significant experience of the care system and suffered horrendous abuse. I am clear that the mother’s significantly traumatic lived experiences, none of which are her fault, affect both her ability to protect the children from abuse at the hands of the father and also her ability to engage with and talk to the professionals. The mother fears social work professionals and distrusts them. I have no doubt that she feels failed by the social work professionals with whom she had experience durig her time as a child in the care system. In light of what she experienced as a child in the care system, I understand entirely why she feels that way. She cannot fairly be blamed in nay way for feeling as she does.

As per the threshold document which I have previously found to accurately reflect the evidence before me, the children have suffered, and were likely to suffer, significant emotional harm arising from the parent exposing them to inappropriate adult conversations. Further, the children have suffered, and were likely to suffer, significant emotional harm arising from the parents verbal abuse towards professionals, and their inability and unwillingness to work appropriately with support services, which impeded professionals from working with the family effectively to ensure the children’s safety and to improve their situation.

From the mother’s perspective, it is not hard to see why it is she finds it so difficult to work with professionals. She likely feels that they did not protect her, nor offer her the support that she needed when she was younger. So I understand why she does not trust, as a rule, social workers and other professionals now. But the reality is, from the children’s perspective, that has been a significant factor which has led to these children suffering such significant harm previously.

So I can, because threshold is established, consider making a public law an order. I have to consider whether I need to and whether, if I do, which order it is proportionate to make. I should only make an order which interferes with the article 8 rights to a private and family life of all involved, including the children, to the extent it is necessary to do so, in order to ensure that their welfare needs are met.

The Local Authority submit that I should make a Care Order and endorse a plan that the children remain at home in their mother’s care. I have thought about it very carefully. Such a plan is not “risk free” to the children. There is agreement across the board that endorsing the children remaining in their mother’s care is a course the Court should take. There is agreement from the Guardian and both parents.

The Local Authority plan is premised on the basis that this is best for the children. They say that the harm they would suffer were they not to remain at home with their mother and be placed into foster care, would be greater than the harm they will suffer if they remain at home.

I am entirely satisfied, having considered all of the evidence I have before me, that the children are likely to suffer emotional harm whether they are removed from their mother’s care or not. If they stay at home, I am satisfied they are going to suffer emotional harm. If they are removed and placed into foster care, they will suffer emotional harm.

The question for me is, on balance, does either option make it more likely that they would suffer significant emotional harm? Ultimately, I must endorse the plan for the children which meets their welfare best interests in the way which interferes least with their, and their parents, article 8 rights. I am satisfied that, on balance, the children are more likely to suffer significant emotional harm if they were removed from home than if they remained at home. I shall now explain why I have reached that conclusion.

I agree with the submission made by each party that the emotional harm caused to the children were they to be removed from their mother’s case is likely to be significant irreversible emotional harm. But, I am also clear that the children will suffer emotional harm by remaining at home. The reason being that there is still a lot of work to do to reduce their exposure to the sort of behaviours which occurred before and which caused them so much harm previously.

The mother is clearly, very much to her credit, beginning the journey to working with professionals in a constructive and productive way for the benefit of the children. Against an extremely difficult background, trust is slowly but surely developing between the mother and those social workers who are trying their best to help her and the children. In fact, it is really obvious to me that the Local Authority do trust the mother, and that is why they have fallen on the side of the children remaining at home. If they did not trust the mother to continue on her journey or building trust with professionals and then working with them for the benefit of the children then they would be asking me to allow them to place both children in foster care. They are not doing so. Having read the Local Authority’s final evidence from the Social Worker, it seems to me that the reason they conclude that remaining at home is the best way to meet the children’s needs is precisely because they do trust the mother. If they did not, they would not be asking me to allow these children to remain at home. I find the social worker’s final statement to be an extremely well thought-out and considered piece of social work analysis which has wrestled appropriately with the pros and cons of the various options for these children.

Whilst the issue of the mother’s trust in, and ability to work with, social work professionals is relevant to my consideration as to which orders are best for the children it does not go directly to whether, if the children’s needs are best met by remaining in their mother’s care, whether I make a Care Order or a Supervision Order.

The issue of trust of, and ability to work with, social work professionals goes primarily to the question of whether the children’s welfare needs are best met by them remaining at home or being placed in foster care. If the children remain at home in their mother’s care, then making a Care Order would neither likely increase nor decrease the mother’s trust in the professionals working with her. The same applies to the making of a Supervision Order.

If the children remain at home, the risks to them do not vanish. I have reminded myself of what the Court of Appeal said in T (Children: Risk Assessment) [2025] EWCA Civ 93.

At paragraph 33, Peter Jackson LJ set out the seven questions which a court must address in determining the plans for children which best meet their welfare needs:

“33.

Accordingly, the court had to address these questions in relation to each of these children:

(1)

What type of harm has arisen and might arise?

(2)

How likely is it to arise?

(3)

What would be the consequences for the child if it did?

(4)

To what extent might the risks be reduced or managed?

(5)

What other welfare considerations have to be taken into account?

(6)

In consequence, which of the realistic plans best promotes the child’s welfare?

(7)

If the preferred plan involves interference with the Article 8 rights of the child or of others, is that necessary and proportionate?”

This reiterates the guidance provided in both Re F (A Child: Placement Order: Proportionality) [2018] EWCA Civ 2761and more recently in Re L-G (Children: risk Assessment) [2025] EWCA Civ 60.

It is not just a case of either ‘risks’ exist or they do not. I have to consider what the risk is of, how likely it is to happen, what would be the impact on the children if it happened, and then what can be done to mitigate the risk. I must then place that assessment into a wider welfare assessment before undertaking a proportionality check.

The risk in this case to the children of remaining at home is clear in my judgment. The risk is that their father is present in the home, behaves in a way which is both physically and emotionally extremely harmful to them directly, and in a way which is emotionally and physically harmful to the mother, which would mean she would not be able to meet the children’s needs because of that extra pressure that would be on her if he was there. The risk is of, simply, the father hurting the children and the mother and the mother not being able to protect the children or herself from it. That is the primary risk for these children.

The risk to them, in terms of the harm they would suffer, is really significant. Without measures being taken to mitigate the likelihood of the risk materialising, I am satisfied it very likely would occur. It is very important that I consider what can be done to mitigate the risks faced by these children. I am satisfied that making a Non-Molestation Order of my own motion preventing the father from attending any address which he knows or believes The mother and the children to be living, from pestering, harassing, or verbally abusing The mother or the children in any way, from contacting the children in any way save with the express permission of the Local Authority or order of the court , from threatening or using any violence towards The mother or the children, and encouraging any other person from doing any of the things he is not permitted to do under the order will have a significant impact on reducing the likelihood of the risk to the children materialising.

The mother advances a “neutral” position as to making of a Non-Molestation Order. I understand why she does so in the circumstances in which she finds herself. I am satisfied that the mother understands the significance of the situation in which she and the children find themselves and is extremely keen not to do anything to jeopardise the chance the Local Authority seek for the court to give her. Having thought about it very carefully, I am satisfied that the mother would likely now take the necessary step of reporting the father to the police were he to act in any way in breach of the order. I do not take the mother’s neutrality on the making of the order to be reflective of her likelihood of acting in a way to protect the children and herself were it to be breached.

That significantly mitigates the risks posed by the father to these children enough to ensure, just, that I am satisfied they should remain at home. I think it likely that if any of those things did happen, and I propose to make the Non-Molestation Order for a period of three years at this point in time, the mother would notify both the Local Authority and the police. It would be a criminal offence, punishable by up to five years in prison if any of those things were to occur in breach of the Non-Molestation Order. The key point in my analysis is that there is firm evidence in my judgment that the mothers ability and willingness to engage with social work professionals is beginning to improve and is likely to drastically improve once proceedings are brought to a close. I accept the social worker’s assessment on that front entirely.

I endorse the Local Authority and Guardian’s trust in the mother to do everything she is able to, to make sure these children are safe at home with her. The father being out of the home, and a Non-Molestation Order preventing his return, goes some way to reduce the risks to the children in these circumstances. The risks posed to the children through the abuse of them and their mother by the father is not extinguished, but they are mitigated significantly in my judgment.

I must weigh that against the risks to the children of being removed from home and being placed into foster care. I accept the submissions made on behalf of the children that they would likely suffer significant emotional harm if they were removed from their mother’s care and placed with strangers (no matter how experienced and attuned to the their needs). I agree that this may be irreversible if they were removed at this point. The children have only ever known being cared for by their mother. They love her deeply and want nothing more than to stay with her. They are of ages where their views are significant and strongly held. Were the children to be removed from their mother’s care it would not only be against their wishes and feelings, but would also cause them to feel upset, worried, scared and fearful of what the future holds for them.

In weighing up the risks to the children, I must also consider that the risks which would remain even if the father is not able to cause them the harm he has previously. The mother’s journey of developing trust and engagement with the social work professionals is in the really early stages. Were the initial progress not to continue, and the mother revert to failing to engage effectively with social work and health professionals for the benefit of the children, they would be at risk of significant emotional, physical, and educational harm. They have suffered all of these things relatively recently because they have not been attending school enough, their physical needs were not consistently met and their health needs were neglected at points. There is a real risk that all of these things are going to continue and that, without significant work being done by the mother and engagement with the support offered to her, it is likely that they will happen again.

I have to consider whether those risks to the children can be mitigated in any way if the children remain in their mother’s care. I have asked myself whether there would likely be any difference in the likelihood of the risks to the children being mitigated depending on whether I made no order, a Supervision Order or a Care Order. What benefits would making a Care Order, as I am urged to do by all parties, bring for these children in the care of their mother? I am satisfied that this is a unique case in my experience, where a Care Order is necessary because it adds much more than just the support the Local Authority will be able to put in place or the “message” which is sent by the court in making a Care Order. Neither would come close to justifying the making of a Care Order by themselves.

It is also nothing to do with the ability of the Local Authority to remove the children, because they can do that in the same way whether I make the Care Order, Supervision Order or no order. So I regard that as irrelevant. Indeed, the Local Authority do not rely on that as part of their argument as to why I should make a Care Order. In fact, the real reason I am satisfied I need to make a Care Order is that there is a real risk to these children that there will come a point where decisions might be made for them by the mother which actually are not in line with their welfare best interests, in terms of engagement with medical appointments, educational school attendance, and in terms of their emotional needs through engagement with social workers, allowing visits.

The reality is that there are likely to be points at time where the Local Authority are going to have to exercise their overriding parental responsibility. That is really the key point in my judgment. In many cases, that would be sufficient to tip the balance away from the plan for the children remaining at home being best for them. However, on balance I am satisfied that even if the Local Authority do need to exercise their parental responsibility at points for the benefit of the children, the method by which they would do so would not tip the balance in favour of the children being removed from their mother’s care benefiting them more than remaining where they are. These children have an extremely strong bond with their mother and I am satisfied that the continued involvement of social workers under a Care Order, whilst undoubtedly intrusive and capable of being the cause of emotional harm to the children, is still better for them than removal. They way in which the Local Authority may need to exercise their parental responsibility may involve ensuring consistent attendance at school or attending routine medical appointments. I am not satisfied that this is especially likely to occur in light of the early signs of engagement from the mother, but I am clear that the risk is more than residual and is one which I must give consideration to in my analysis of which order is needed in this case.

I have considered whether the support the Local Authority need to offer would be different under a Supervision Order to that which would be available under a Care Order. Having considered the submissions made on behalf of the Local Authority, it might well be that ‘on the ground’ the extent of their involvement and the support would be different. However, it appears to me that would be as a result of Local Authority policy as opposed to what support could be put in place. But having thought carefully about what the President said in JW, I am entirely clear that it would be wrong for me to make a Care Order simply to encourage the Local Authority to do things which they could do, but would be less likely to do, if I did not make the order. Actually I think the reason I must, in this case, make an order sought by the Local Authority is that allows them to share parental responsibility and I think it is likely there will be points where they have to exercise it.

I am satisfied that as the mother makes the progress I know she really wants to make, the chance of them having to, and if they do, the frequency with which they will need to, will reduce significantly. But at the moment, I am entirely satisfied that the evidence points firmly to there being situations in all likelihood where, in terms of medical, educational, and engagement with social workers, the Local Authority may need to make decisions for these children which are not what The mother would, at that point in time, decide is best for them.

So for that reason, there is a need for the Local Authority to share parental responsibility. But, in this exceptional case, that does not lead to the need for the children to be separated from their mother. Having balanced the risks carefully, I am satisfied for the reasons I have given that these children would be caused much more significant emotional harm if they were removed from their mum, who they obviously love dearly, and who loves them dearly, than if they were not.

But the risks are still there. The only way to adequately guard against them in the specific circumstances of this case is to make a Care Order allowing the Local Authority to share parental responsibility. The removal of the children from their mother’s care would undoubtedly protect them from any risk of harm from their father or from decisions made by her which were adverse to their welfare best interests. However, those risks can be mitigated to the extent that removal of the children from their mother’s care is unnecessary. The making of a Care Order and a Non-Molestation Order ensures that the risks to the children of emotional harm are mitigated. Considering those mitigated risks alongside the extremely strong bond between the mother and the children and their very firmly expressed wishes and feelings, remaining in their mother’s care under a Care Order is the plan which interferes with the article 8 rights of all involved to the least extent necessary to meet the overall welfare needs of these children. Those are, therefore, the orders that I shall make.

I make clear that I have considered the pros and cons of a Supervision Order or no public law order being made. There are lots of benefits to making a Supervision Order which are also present were I to make a Care Order, but there are not any benefits I can identify of a Supervision Order being made instead of a Care Order which would ensure that it was the right order to make in the specific circumstances in which these children find themselves. I have considered the submission made on behalf of the mother that making a Supervision Order would result in her feeling that she was being “trusted more”. Whilst I understand the basis of that submission, I cannot think of anything which could make the trust being placed in the mother clearer than the Local Authority proposing that the children remain in her care on the basis that she will work with them to ensure things continue to be good enough for the children.

The Care Order I am going to make is not because the court does not “trust” the mother. The Care Order is going to be made precisely because the Court does find it likely that the mother will work with the Local Authority as she has indicated she will. That continued work is essential to ensure that things remain good enough for these children.

I have heard submissions regarding the “messaging” surrounding making either a Supervision Order or a Care Order. Whilst I understand the argument that a parent may “take” different things from the court making either of the orders, it is not something I attach any weight to. If a parent were to think that the making of a Supervision Order may involve less social work intervention than the making of a Care Order then they may be right, but it makes little sense that a parent willing to work with the Local Authority, as this mother is, would somehow be put off from doing so if it were under one order or another.

The Local Authority are keen to stress to me and propose that it will be in the recitals to my order that they will not remove the children other than in the sort of emergency situation in which they would need to act without permission of the Court. In many ways, that recital adds nothing to the order the Local Authority ask me to make and the Care Plan they ask me to approve. Put simply, the Local Authority could not remove the children from the mother’s care in any situation other than one in which they would need to remove any child from any parent’s care regardless of whether any order was in place or not. However, in the circumstances of this case (and in what is perhaps the opposite approach anyone who appears before me regularly knows that I usually adopt regarding recitals) I will allow its inclusion. I will reserve any such applications to myself, if I am available, and will hear it on an urgent basis if needs be.

The position in respect of potential removal of the children is the same whether I make no order, a Supervision Order or a Care Order. It is entirely, as the President said in JW, procedural. I make clear that I do not find it likely that a situation will arise as a result of the mother’s care of the children under a Care Order which would necessitate the removal of the children Were I to conclude that the need for removal would likely arise, I would not be sanctioning a plan for them to remain in her care. I accept that the mother will try to do everything I know she wants to do and will carry on making good progress is going and carry on the work that she is doing for the benefit of her children.

The mother has assured me that she is fully committed “to being the best mum I can be”. There is good evidence before me which supports her assertion. She has ensured that the father has left the family home and has not returned. She has ensured that the father has not had contact with the children. She has co-operated completely with the psychologist who has produced two reports to assist me in making the decisions I must. The recent addendum psychological report I found particularly helpful. She has engaged with the social workers and what they have asked her to do between the last hearing and now. It is obvious she has found all those things very difficult but has nonetheless done everything asked of her in very difficult circumstances. The fact that she has done so satisfies me that she is going to do continue doing everything she can to continue to do so in the future.

In terms of contact, there cannot be any contact between the father and the children unless the Local Authority expressly agree it. The father poses such a risk of emotional harm through abusive behaviour and emotional harm through failing to attend contact and letting the children down that it is not currently in their welfare best interests to spend time with him. On the clearest of evidence before me, the Local Authority will only agree that if it is in the children’s welfare best interests to have any contact with their father following a full and proper risk assessment. The father’s own case is he cannot see the children now because his “mental health is so bad”. The issue of future contact with the father is another reason why it is necessary for me to make a Care Order. I am satisfied that, because everything the mother has been through has a result of the father’s behaviour, and the pressures that the mother has been under a result, it will be difficult for her if the father, in breach of the Non-Molestation Order, were to contact her and ask to see the children. Through no fault of her own, as a victim of domestic abuse, the mother would likely feel under a great deal of pressure from the father were he to seek contact with the children. Whilst I am satisfied that the father is not seeking that now as a result of his extremely poor mental health, it is likely that he will do in the near to mid future. I am satisfied that the mother will likely call the police if the father does contact her, but the making of a Care Order removes some of the pressure from her in determining issues of contact. Whilst, of course, any decisions would be taken together by the mother and the Local Authority, the overriding nature of the Local Authority’s parental responsibility were there to be disagreement between them and the mother about contact, or if the mother felt unable to make an informed decision about it, would work to the benefit of these children.

In conclusion, in the very unusual circumstances of this case, I am satisfied that the Local Authority need to continue sharing parental responsibility for these children but that a removal of the children from the care of their mother would likely cause them more harm than if they were to remain in her care. As a result, anything less interventionalist that a Care Order with the children remaining in their mother’s care would not be in their welfare best interests. The more interventionalist course of removing the children from their mother’s care and them being looked after in foster care would also not in their welfare best interests.

For those reasons, I must make the Care Order that is sought and must endorse the plan for the children to remain in their mother’s care at home.

I must also make the Non-Molestation Order for a period of three years in the terms that I have set out. That is the proportionate length of time as it ensures that the mother and the children are protected from harm caused by the father for a considerable period of time. Whilst an obvious and clear interference with the father’s article 8 rights, it is a proportionate interference in the interests of the mother and these children.

For all the reasons given, I therefore make the orders sought by the Local Authority and endorse the plans before me for each of the children, agreeing entirely as I do with the analysis of the experienced Guardian.