IN THE FAMILY COURT CASE NO.
IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN ACT 1989
IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILD, Z
B E T W E E N:
LOCAL AUTHORITY
Applicant
And
X (Mother)
First Respondent
And
Y (Father)
Second Respondent
And
A and B
Third and Fourth Respondents
And
Z (through the Children’s Guardian)
Fifth Respondent
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT OF RECORDER FIONA WILLIAMS AT FINAL HEARING
SITTING AT THE FAMILY COURT, 17-19 NOVEMBER 2025
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This matter comes before me as a final hearing listed for three days. I am concerned with the welfare of Z, who is aged 20 months. I note that following hearing evidence, there is now an agreed outcome before the court, but consider it appropriate nonetheless to give a full judgment to record the position as it stands.
I wish to say a few things to the parents and grandparents at the beginning of my judgment. The child is the most important person for the court, but next in this case are the parents and grandparents. X, the mother, made a very brave child-focused decision prior to the beginning of the hearing, confirming that she is not putting herself forwards to care for Z and does not therefore seek to have her returned to her care. The Father, Y, had the opportunity to attend the court hearing from prison but chose not to attend or engage with the hearing, albeit he has been represented throughout by Counsel. He had a conference on the morning of Day 3 during which he was made aware of the new direction in which this case was heading. He also is not putting himself forward to care for Z. I commend both parents for recognising what is best for Z in this way. I want the parents and grandparents to know that I have listened extremely carefully to everything that has been said, and have taken their views into account as well as the professionals. In my courtroom (and I try to say this in every judgment I give), everyone has the opportunity to be seen and feel heard, that goes for parties and advocates alike. I have tried to keep the atmosphere as relaxed as possible, given the serious circumstances of these proceedings, and ensured fair participation by giving breaks and ensuring each witness could give their best evidence.
I make this observation also. The social workers and Guardian gave thoughtful, considered evidence, making relevant and necessary concessions. This was not a case where witnesses stuck to their “story” or recommendation no matter what; and taking that flexible approach was entirely appropriate. It is an example of reflective practice in motion. I commend the social workers and Guardian for their professionalism.
I also want to recognise the hard work of the advocates in this case. It is a case where detailed, conscientious preparation and skilled advocacy has made a real difference to the outcome, which will be life changing for one little girl. The advocates should not underestimate the importance of what they do.
Then I come to the Mother, X, and the grandparents A and B. We have used first names this week to avoid any confusion, and I mean no disrespect to them when I use their first names throughout my judgment although I may also use “Mother”, “Father”, and “grandparents”. I observed X throughout this hearing to sit quietly, fully engaged and attentive, patiently awaiting her turn to speak. This is indicative of just how far she has come in these proceedings and over the course of the past year. I set no store whatsoever by the slightly prickly exchange she had with the Guardian following court on Monday. Anybody in her position, having sat quietly for the day listening to the case for care and placement orders about their precious child, would have felt entirely and naturally on edge. It is impossible for us to understand what it is like to be X – only X knows what it is like to be X. We should have empathy towards anybody in her position following a day of listening to difficult evidence about her baby. I have also observed A and B throughout this hearing, as well as hearing their evidence. They both sat quietly and calmly, despite evident distress, and fully co-operated with this hearing in a most dignified manner. Again, we cannot know what it is like to walk in their shoes. I am grateful to them for the way in which they have conducted themselves.
To avoid prolonging the agony of waiting for a long judgment to be delivered, the decision I am making is as follows: I will make final orders today, and there will be a Special Guardianship Order in favour of A and B for Z. I have seen the written agreement, transition plan and supervision order support plan and endorse these documents as being entirely appropriate. I consider that Z is comfortable with A and B, that they are not strangers to her. She has been in their care for periods of time already, albeit she is currently in foster care. Contact has been consistent and overwhelmingly positive, and Z knows who A and B are and seeks comfort appropriately. There does not therefore need to be a testing period recommended by the Guidance as there has never been any concern for the care given. The worries that linger are more long-term regarding the stability of X’s mental health and how she progresses on her path to improvement, which requires the input of a robust plan under the Supervision Order I am making in favour of the Local Authority for a period of 12 months. I do not need to cause further unnecessary delay for Z, it being well known that delay is harmful.
I am not asked to make any orders in relation to contact for the Father. Any contact with the Father should be following discussion with and input from the Local Authority. Z’s welfare is paramount and this is not an opportunity for the Mother (or indeed the Father) to put adult needs first before Z’s. The grandparents will need to demonstrate in this period how effective they are at managing contact for the Mother, amongst the competing needs of both children in their care and all the other things that a busy life contains.
The Mother has herself, insightfully, requested monthly contact but for longer (reflecting that quality is more important than quantity), and I endorse this approach, but recognise that in due course it will ultimately be for A and B to determine. It is right that initially it is supervised by the Local Authority under the Supervision Order but at some point it will be supervised by A or B, or another appropriate person. X, A and B will recognise what is required of them through the Written Agreement and the expectation is one of full co-operation.
At this point I also note that the full DBS checks have not been received. This is not an issue which prevents the court from concluding today. I note that there have been checks made with the police and we have the benefit of full reports through the Local Authority process such that I do not intend to delay finalisation for the sake for the DBS checks.
PARTIES AND REPRESENTATION
So to the full judgment. The Local Authority is represented by Ms Millard. The social worker E gave evidence on 17 November 2025. A member of the social team was present at court throughout the hearing. The Mother of Z is X. She is represented by Ms Walsh. The Father of Z is Y. He did not attend but is represented by Mr Gordon. The maternal grandmother A and the maternal step-grandfather B are represented by Ms O’Malley. Finally the children’s Guardian is represented by Ms Taite. The Guardian was also present in court for the duration of the final hearing and gave evidence last at the end of Day 2.
APPLICATIONS
Z is currently in foster care under an Interim Care Order. For the avoidance of doubt, I say again that Z is my primary concern and the most important person in this case. Her welfare throughout her life is my paramount concern at all times.
The applications before the Court are brought by the local authority, initially for care and placement orders.
The Mother X had sought the return of Z to her care but shortly before this hearing began she reconsidered her position and took the brave decision not to seek the return to her care. She threw her support behind her mother A and her step-father B in their desire to be Special Guardians.
The Father Y has not put himself forward to care for Z, which again is not only a practical decision given his current residence in prison but also child focussed. He also supported A and B having the care of Z under a Special Guardianship Order.
The Guardian originally supported the Local Authority’s application for care and placement orders. However, in her evidence she conceded that given the reduction in risks, the evidence that some of the risks were not as initially thought, and that the outstanding risks can be managed through robust support, she altered her position and recommended to the court that a Special Guardianship Order be made for Z in favour of A and B, with a Supervision Order to the Local Authority.
BACKGROUND AND THRESHOLD
The background to this case can be summarised briefly. Z has been known to the local authority since prior to her birth. The local authority’s concerns regarding the Mother and Father relate to parental cannabis use and domestic abuse between the parents, resulting in concerns of emotional and physical harm to Z.
The Father was remanded in prison for a serious incident of domestic abuse in which the Mother was the victim. There is a 5-year restraining order in place for the Mother’s protection. The Father was released from remand but later recalled to prison (on another matter not related to the Mother) where he remains. Threshold is agreed between the parties, but the court has had oversight of the agreed document which it approves. It is clear from this document that there has been not only violent behaviour by the Father to the Mother but also coercive and controlling behaviour. Further there has been violent behaviour from the Mother to others, including the maternal grandmother A, and there are concerns around neglect and chaotic behaviour. Threshold is clearly crossed for the purposes of making public law orders.
ADJOURNMENT FOR FURTHER ADDENDUM SGO REPORT
On Day 1 of the hearing I heard evidence from F, the author of the SGO assessment report. Her evidence followed that of the allocated Social Worker, who I considered made appropriate and thoughtful concessions about identified risks, the level of risk and management of risk, but she did not go so far as to change her recommendations to the court. F, too, did not change her recommendations, but conceded that there could be an addendum SGO assessment over a period of 8 weeks which, although causing delay which is not in Z’s best interests or timescales, would answer a number of questions raised about updating information for the family in the last four months, such as the engagement with kinship support, the Mother moving some distance away and having shown greater ability in recent times to regulate her emotions and refrain from any activity which might cause the police to become involved, and the levels of risk reduction by continuing to work with the family. Any delay would need to be on the basis that it is purposeful. By the end of the evidence, it was apparent that such a further report was not going to be necessary, with the evidence before the court being sufficient to demonstrate at this moment in time that a Special Guardianship Order could be made with additional orders in support. There was therefore no need to consider an adjournment and I was not invited to do so.
ISSUES
I therefore need to decide, following the change in position, whether I am prepared to endorse a Special Guardianship Order in favour of A and B, a Supervision Order of 12 months’ duration to the Local Authority, and whether there need to be any other ancillary or protective orders to secure the position.
THRESHOLD
The agreed threshold is contained within the revised threshold document provided to the court. I quote below but will not read out:
The relevant date in this matter is X/X/XXXX, on which Z became accommodated under section 20.
The Local Authority contends that the Threshold Criteria is met on the basis that Z has suffered, or is at risk of suffering significant harm in the care of her Mother and Father.
The LocalAuthorityreliesonthefollowinginsupportoftheapplication:
Z is at risk of physical harm and neglect due to the parents’ cannabis misuse:
The Mother used Cannabis whilst Z was in her care but did not use Cannabis in Z’s presence. [E1-13]
On X/X/XXXX, the Police reported that the Mother and Father were using Cannabis and drug paraphernalia was noted in the home. Z was not present in the home at this time. [A7-8, C5, C11, C21-22, E1-13]
The Father uses Cannabis. [G31, H15]
Z is at risk of emotional and physical harm due to domestic abuse between her parents:
The Father has a criminal history of relationships involving domestic violence, having threatened or committed domestic abuse against two or more individuals. [C13; G20, H9]
On X/X/XXXX, there was a domestic incident between the Mother and Father. The Father grabbed the Mother’s phone without her consent and refused to return it. When the Mother informed the Father she would go to a neighbours to call the Police, the Father grabbed her by the hair, threw her on the bed, and hit her twice around the face [H108-118]
On X/X/XXXX, the Mother asked the Father to leave her address. The Father refused to leave, so the Mother locked herself in the lavatory. The Father then unlocked the door using a knife. The Father did not leave the address for an hour. [H119-129]
On X/X/XXXX, the Mother informed the Father she was ending the relationship. The Father left the flat and as he was leaving, pushed the door as the Mother was stood behind it causing the Mother to fall backwards into the wall and the door to hit her in the shoulder. The Father then picked up a slider shoe and hit the Mother in the face with it. [H108-118] v. On X/X/XXXX the Mother was trying to lock the Father out of the property when he pushed through the door pushing the Mother back into the wall and causing a bruise above her eyebrow. [A11, C22, H77-H105, H120129]
On or around X/X/XXXX, the Father alleged that the Mother had been “harassing” him and “constantly calling on unknown numbers”. By the time the Police responded to this event, the Mother and Father had reconciled and were back in a relationship. [A11, C22, H120-129]
Between X/X/XXXX and X/X/XXXX, the Father physically assaulted the Mother in at least two separate incidents by punching her, strangling her and pulling her hair. [A11-13, C5, C23]
As a result of the incident on X/X/XXXX, the Father was arrested for four counts of actual bodily harm and remanded in Wandsworth Prison. [C5, H9]
On X/X/XXXX, Prison Officers found a mobile phone in the Father’s position which they believed he was using to contact the Mother. [C12, H160-172]
The Father exerts coercive and controlling behaviour over the Mother, gaining access to her social media accounts by guessing her passwords and attempting to distance her from friends and family by saying she is choosing them over him. [H108-118, H84-105]
The Mother has failed to protect Z from the domestic abuse perpetrated by the Father:
The Mother continued her relationship with the Father following the DVDS disclosure which was read to her on X/X/XXXX
The Mother has withdrawn her statements to the Police regarding the domestic incidents between her and the Father on one or more occasions,
The Mother has indicated her intention to reconcile with the Father upon his release from prison on one or more occasions. [C12-13, G23-25, G32]
Z is at risk of emotional and physical harm in the care of her Mother due to the Mother’s violent behaviours towards others:
On X/X/XXXX, the Mother and Maternal Grandmother were involved in a verbal altercation with Z present resulting in the Police being called to the address. [A12, C22, H63-76]
On X/X/XXXX, the Mother was in a verbal altercation with members of her family in which she was verbally aggressive towards the Maternal Aunt and Maternal Grandmother including making threats to kill them. Z was present in the home at the time of this incident. [C6, H149-159]
On X/X/XXXX, an incident occurred between the Mother and Maternal Grandmother whereby:
The Mother was verbally abusive towards the Maternal Grandmother resulting in the Police being called.
The Mother agreed to leave the address and whilst packing her belongings, was grabbing items off the sofa and nearly hitting Z with them due to her reckless behaviour.
The Mother was shouting and swearing whilst Z was present in the home.
The Mother was smoking in the property despite being advised not to do so as Z was present. [H160-172]
On X/X/XXXX, a verbal and physical altercation occurred between the Mother and Maternal Grandmother whereby :
The Mother was verbally abusive towards the Maternal Grandmother,
The Mother repeatedly punched the Maternal Grandmother in the arm whilst stationary in the car. Z was in the car at the time
The Mother hit the Maternal Aunt, AM, and kicked the Maternal Uncle in the knee when they attempted to remove her from the Maternal Grandmother’s car.
Z was present throughout this incident. [C7, C25, A20-21, H173186]
d. Z is at risk of neglect, emotional and physical harm in the care of her Mother due to the Mother’s chaotic behaviours:
The Mother was evicted from her accommodation
On X/X/XXXX, the Mother went missing with Z and was not contactable until her return on X/X/XXXX. [C6; H130-148]
The Mother has made threats not to return Z to the Maternal Grandmother’s care as per the safety plan unless the Maternal Grandmother gives her money. [H173-186]
Z is at risk of emotional harm and neglect in her Mother’s care due to the Mother’s mental health:
The Mother suffers from low mood and/or anxiety and/or depression which affects her ability to provide safe and consistent care to Z. [C12, G5, E28, G29, G33, H72]
LAW
Threshold has been conceded, and so the threshold is crossed for the making of public law orders under s31(2) of the Children Act 1989 in any event.
I make it clear that Z’s welfare throughout her life has been my paramount consideration in concluding these proceedings. The welfare checklist in section 1(4) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 has been carefully considered and balanced when reaching my conclusions, even if I do not refer to each subsection in turn or specifically.
I have reminded myself that no order should be made unless it would be better for Z for me to do so.
The Article 6 and Article 8 rights of Z and of the parents are engaged and any interference with those rights must be necessary and proportionate.
This is also a case where risk of harm has been a very pressing concern, and so I also ask myself “what is the harm”? The court's decision in Re L-G (Children: Risk Assessment) [2025] EWCA Civ 60 , reiterates the guidance given in Re F (A Child: Placement Order: Proportionality) [2018] EWCA Civ 2761, [2018] All ER (D) 94 (Dec) . The risk of harm, important as it is, is one of a number of factors in the welfare checklist, and it has to be carefully assessed particularly where it may be decisive.
The Children Act 1989 provides a framework within which the court assesses whether a child has suffered or is likely to suffer 'significant harm' for the purposes of the threshold for intervention, and 'harm' for the purposes of the welfare assessment. The court has to address these questions in relation to Z:
What type of harm has arisen and might arise?
How likely is it to arise?
What would be the consequences for the child if it did?
To what extent might the risks be reduced or managed?
What other welfare considerations have to be taken into account?
In consequence, which of the realistic plans best promotes the child's welfare?
If the preferred plan involves interference with the Article 8 rights of the child or of others, is that necessary and proportionate?
In my analysis as I heard the case, I have considered all these questions. Much of the evidence relates to all the subheadings and I seek to avoid repetition by giving a holistic overview taking all factors into account.
WRITTEN AND ORAL EVIDENCE
I have considered all the written evidence contained in the bundles of documents supplied by the Local Authority which included the social worker’s statements, both parents’ statements, the statements of A and B, and the Guardian’s analysis. I have read the Viability Assessments and also the SGO assessment of A and B, together with both versions of the addendum SGO assessment dated 14 July and 21 July 2025 respectively, noting the difference in the concluding paragraphs. I have read the ADM decision and updating report. In addition, there are drug testing reports, police disclosure, and other social work documents. In short, I have read the bundle. Importantly, I have listened carefully to the updating oral evidence in court, assessed the credibility of the parties, and analysed the concessions made.
EVIDENCE - WELFARE
The allocated Social Worker E, gave evidence to the court on Day 1. F, the SGO assessor also gave evidence on Day 1.
In her oral evidence E did not change her recommendations but made a significant number of concessions, agreeing with most of the points put to her by each advocate. The concerns and risk relating to Z being placed in the care of A and B are identified in the Social Worker’s statement and specifically from the SGO author’s report as follows:
the theme of sexual abuse within the family’s history and A’s reflections on these as part of this assessment
concerns as to how A and B would manage meeting Z’s needs alongside that of G
family’s history reflects a reluctance to engage with support from Children’s Services
there is a history of A and B attempting to set boundaries with X, however this tends to result in the Police being called due to the situation escalating and becoming violent or abusive
all of A and B’s children have had some level of involvement with Children’s Services, including T as a teenager, this includes referrals from school raising concerns around physical chastisement, challenging behaviour, missing episodes, poor school attendance, aggressive behaviour and reports of sexual abuse.
Having heard evidence, and the Social Worker E and the SGO report author F making several concessions, the principle concerns which remain for Z in the care of her grandparents appeared to be these:
Risk of sexual harm, or risks arising from the grandparents (and specifically A) being insufficiently curious as to any reports of sexual harm and taking protective measures, given that some of the children of the family have experienced sexual abuse.
Risk from the maternal grandmother being the primary source of support for X, who has historically exhibited violent behaviour (including to A and including in the presence of Z), and how A’s attention might be diverted from Z in prioritising X
The impact on G and Z of there being two children in the household, one with significant needs and one a toddler whose future needs are currently unknown in terms of any difficulties arising from the traumatic start in life.
When I heard from F, the SGO assessor, I was troubled by the existence of a copy of an addendum report dated 14 July 2025 which had not been placed into the bundle and which clearly indicates F, having conducted her addendum, felt she could not make a recommendation one way or another. Of course the role of the assessor is to consider the information and evidence and make a recommendation but sometimes it is not possible in very finely balanced cases to do so. It seems to me that F’s considered opinion on 14 July 2025 was that she could not recommend to the court one way or another whether there should be a SGO. I note this was signed off by her Manager.
I contrast this then with the addendum report a week later, which contained no new information but changed the recommendation such that she was not in support of the SGO being made. It was enquired of F as to whether her views had been influenced and she said that there had been discussions and reflections with the social work team, but that the outcome was still her own recommendation. It is hugely dissatisfactory for the parents in this case and the prospective Special Guardians to see a report which cannot make a recommendation and then a week later to be sent an update which does, without any new information. I was not satisfied, having heard the evidence of F and assessing her credibility on this point, that the change in stance was not down to outside influence. I prefer the conclusion of the first addendum report which appears to have been F’s own conclusions and signed off by her manager, that she was simply unable to recommend one way or the other. Sometimes that happens. It is not every case where there are clear conclusions, or borderline conclusions which ultimately fall one way over another. Sometimes there really are cases where the assessor finds it impossible to make a recommendation. That is why we have court proceedings and the court determines the issues.
I heard from the Mother in evidence. She has previously been known to be volatile – there is no escaping the threshold document which clearly shows how she has responded to stress and escalates matters beyond what can be considered a reasonable and proportionate response. I take into account that she was very distressed during her evidence, having taken the enormously brave decision to accept that she can no longer care for Z. I found her evidence forthright, and she said whatever came into her head in the manner that someone who experiences emotional volatility might do. I did not get the sense that she had rehearsed or planned what she wanted to say to please the court, and said that she had felt she would enjoy the work as a prison officer as it would fulfil any need for drama to avoid seeking drama in her own life at home. I found this a very interesting piece of evidence – X clearly recognises that she is someone who responds to excitement and drama, even of the negative kind. She was upset by an interaction with the Guardian on the steps of the court after Day 1 of the hearing, in which she had an exchange with the Guardian who wished her a good evening and said to get some sleep, and X responded “it’s quite hard to have a decent sleep when all good work I have done is being used against me”, and to which the Guardian responded “I am not arguing with you” and walked away. I do not minimise the anguish of court proceedings nor the difficulty in giving evidence and being challenged. I give no weight at all to this exchange between X and the Guardian.
I heard from A in evidence. I found her to be defensive at points, but do not say this as a criticism. She has clearly endured a great deal in her life, and been under the spotlight for this. Cross examination for her was particularly difficult, no doubt as a consequence of talking about extremely traumatic events. I found her evidence compelling, if a little defensive, and have no reason whatsoever to doubt her integrity or desire to care for Z to the very best of her ability in the same way she has cared for G.
B was not listed on the witness template to give evidence, but given the Local Authority’s application was for care and placement orders, I asked that he give brief evidence. He has been a dignified reassuring presence for A throughout this hearing, offering quiet support. He clearly loves his family as much as A, and albeit he will not be the primary carer it is reassuring that in their committed relationship he and A have navigated life’s ups and downs and weathered any storms together.
Lastly I heard from the Guardian, who gave thoughtful evidence about the worries for the family. As she answered the cross examination from the Mother’s Counsel, it became apparent that she could no longer conclude that “nothing else will do” for Z and she endorsed the making of a Special Guardianship Order and Supervision Order.
PEN PICTURE
Throughout this hearing I have been developing a picture of Z. She is a much loved little girl who is described as an easy child. Her foster carer has described her as “happy, placid, playful, affectionate”. She is meeting all her age-expected milestones. I am quite sure she is a delight. She would, I have no doubt, wish to be raised within her birth family if at all possible. Observations from Family Time contact suggest that Z recognises her family members, and she is receptive to receiving comfort and emotional warmth offered by X and A.
Equally, if Z could articulate her views, I am sure she would wish to be safe. This court cannot eliminate all risk, it can only hold and weigh risk, and manage it. The court needs to weigh all factors in the balance when considering the best outcome for Z, and ensure that any orders made are necessary and proportionate.
I am of course not making decisions for G but I consider her also within the picture of the family. The positives of her care, the report from her school, the lack of Local Authority concern and lack of any court order regulating her living arrangements only indicate to me the strengths of the parenting provided to her. It has been said that A and B have gone above and beyond, doing more than required for G. She is a child who delights in spending time with Z, who has saved the toys she has outgrown for her, and enjoys a wide family network with time spent with cousins and other relations. I have heard at length evidence regarding just how capable A and B are of meeting her needs, given she has autism (diagnosed last week) and global developmental delay. Their care of G is a credit to them, and highly relevant when considering how they would care for Z.
FINDINGS
I am not asked to make findings in relation to any allegations of sexual abuse and the harm caused to the family either by the abuse itself or, more particularly, A’s knowledge and awareness of it and her ability to take protective steps. Any findings made are of course on the balance of probabilities. It is plain to me from the evidence before the court this week and in the papers as follows:
Regarding N, A took protective action and gave evidence against Q. She was asked at length about this abuse, and I have no doubt of the impact on A of the harm caused to N, as well as the harm caused to N herself. Questions about what she might do with hindsight showed the extent to which A has ruminated about the past, but I make it plain that the phrase “hindsight is a wonderful thing” applies. I find that A did the best she could in the circumstances and acted protectively. Certainly a court had no difficulties many years ago, following the rape of her daughter and the birth of her granddaughter, in placing that granddaughter with A under a Child Arrangements Order for her to Live With A for the remainder of her minority. The court would have had full knowledge, in far more recent times than this hearing (with this hearing taking place many years after the events), of what had occurred and was satisfied it was safe for T to live with A.
Regarding L and M, it seems to me that whilst F formed a view from the files to which she had access, another Social Worker took a different view from what was presumably the same or similar access. Their reports are such that it is not clear whether or not L and M reported to A the abuse they endured, at court ordered supervised contact with which A was obliged to co-operate, and I am not able to make a finding that A knew about the abuse or failed to act. Indeed the evidence within the bundle shows A acted protectively once she knew, having been informed by the police, and I rely on the letter from the Victim Liaison Unit dated very recently which states that A has been in contact with the Victim Liaison Scheme for many years since the perpetrator of the crimes against her children was sentenced. The letter says, and I quote: “there have been regular updates during the offender's sentence and A has maintained contact, expressed concerns and requested additional licence conditions are in place to ensure the safety and protection of her children. Despite A’s children now being adults, contact remains with A due to the emotional harm caused; therefore A can update them at a time it is felt suitable depending on their wellbeing and information being provided. It’s clear from contact with A that she fully understands the effects the offences have had on her children and remains the point of contact to try to protect them”. If this is not acting protectively, then I am not sure what is. I accept that A has done all she can to protect both L and M.
Regarding F, I accept entirely the context in which the report was made by F of abuse by B and that she later confirmed that she had lied. I accept the statement made by F, and note that she has not been called to be challenged on her statement, in which she says “Under pressure, and in a highly vulnerable state, I made a false accusation of sexual assault against him. The allegation was entirely untrue, and deeply regret in doing so. My step-father is a decent hard-working man who has always provided for our family. The allegation I made against him was entirely false, and I take full responsibility for the damage it may have caused. I deeply regret my actions, and the distress caused to my stepfather and family”. In those circumstances, I struggle to see how A has been suggested to be at fault for not being sufficiently curious as to whether F had been telling the truth at the time the allegation was first made. Not only has it been shown to be a false allegation, but at the time A was aware that F was about to make such an allegation because she had informed A that she was going to do so. I am not surprised A therefore disbelieved F when the allegation was made, instead of questioning if it were true. It is an example of how context is key.
Taking the sexual abuse allegations then “in the round” has been an unhelpful approach. It has led to the feeling described by the Guardian “that there is something in the background for the family” and which has been responsible in part for driving this case, and which is not borne out by greater scrutiny when each incident is looked at individually. That there have been 3 children sexually abused in two separate incidents is appalling. I consider that rather than taking this to mean there is a problem in the family background, or with A’s care (when it has always been plain she is not a perpetrator and it should have been clear she was acting protectively), it means that this is a family which has endured more trauma than anyone should endure in their lifetimes. It requires support not condemnation. Five advocates in two days, both exploring and challenging the evidence, have been able to show that the risks identified regarding sexual harm and protective care are not based on any solid evidence. I make no criticism of E, but I am disappointed that the Local Authority has not been able to perceive this over the many months of their involvement. It is an element of their case which is not at all borne out by the evidence, even on paper. There has been a broad brush approach which has neglected the detail. It should be recorded that this court does not find any failure to protect by A insofar as the abuse suffered by N, L and M.
I also consider the risks identified in relation to X and her ability to self regulate and control her impulsivity. Whilst this is something which is only at the beginning of its journey, and X will need to demonstrate commitment to herself and to Z in keeping away, this is not a risk that is wholly unmanageable. Support should be given to X in engaging with services, to help her continue on this path. I do not see that in principle phone calls to her mum are going to destabilise Z’s living situation. It will be for Z’s care givers to manage how and when they answer phone calls from X. Sometimes X might have to accept her mum cannot talk to her. Other times it will be an entirely natural part of family life that X rings her mum and that Z might hear and be curious. The risk of emotional harm to Z can be carefully and sensibly managed by her care givers.
I come then to the impact upon G of having Z permanently in the home. I make this observation first. Any child who is used to full attention as a single, or first born, child will inevitably have a period of adjustment when either a new baby is born or another child comes into the family. G’s care is excellent, it being acknowledged her parents have gone above and beyond what is required. They have managed her needs at home, liaised with her school (which is mainstream and not entirely suited to her needs), and all healthcare professionals have been appropriately consulted. The note of the conversation with her school, which identifies incidents of soiling when Z was in the family home does not say “because” Z was in the home. I cannot see any evidence of causation to link G’s soiling with Z’s presence. In any event, her soiling was appropriately managed and continues to be so. I cannot see any sufficient detriment to the care of G that would lead me to conclude Z cannot be placed in the same household. In fact, the evidence of extraordinary parenting offered to G should reassure everybody regarding the sort of care Z can expect for the remainder of her minority. It cannot be the case that nothing else will do for Z when there is a home within her family where another child is receiving excellent care of the sort that should lead all concerned to consider Z will receive the reparative parenting she needs and deserves.
ANALYSIS AND DECISION
I have therefore considered the totality of threshold, protective measures, and all the s1(4) welfare checklist factors when weighing up the options before the court and the right outcome. Simply because I do not refer to each checklist factor individually does not mean that I have failed to take it into account. This is a case where an order is absolutely necessary to secure the future for Z, and the No Order principle does not apply.
I was not satisfied with the evidence and analysis from the Local Authority who originally sought to persuade me that nothing else will do and therefore the only realistic option for Z is care and placement orders for adoption. I also had significant concerns about the Guardian’s analysis, and by no means detract from the very hard work undertaken by her, but consider it deficient in its lack of reference to G (indeed the Guardian had not even met her, despite her being central to some of the Local Authority’s concerns) and lack of analysis of some key factors, heavily reliant as it was, on the SGO report and addendum. Having heard the concessions made by the social worker, E, and also by F about the improvements made by X and the reduction in risk, it is perhaps unsurprising that the Guardian when listening to the totality of the evidence and considering what risk was considered outstanding felt that this was no longer a case where “nothing else will do” and that the court could no longer contemplate that most draconian of orders, that of placement for adoption. I commend the Guardian for her flexibility of approach and being willing to change her recommendation.
The risk which remained identified at the end of the evidence is a risk which can be managed by a Supervision Order to facilitate intervention around contact and support, whilst leaving the Special Guardians to exercise their Parental Responsibility under the SGO. Having made some slight criticism of the Local Authority, I do however commend the Local Authority for listening to the evidence, reflecting upon their application and confirming that they no longer pursue care and placement orders and instead consider the appropriate outcome to be the making of a Special Guardianship Order alongside a Supervision Order in favour of the Local Authority.
I considered the need for this matter to go part-heard to pursue a testing period, as opposed to making final orders today. Z is not a stranger to her grandparents, and has previously lived with them. They have cared for her, and she has a bond with them from that time and which has been maintained through good quality contact. I have considered the guidance but in the circumstances of this case, based on the evidence I have heard, I am content to make final orders today.
I do note that Z also has a bond with her foster carer, to whom I extend thanks for her excellent care. I know that X is grateful to the foster carer also. The bond with her foster carer however means that any transition for Z has to be done carefully, in a child focussed way. I am sure it will be.
Insofar as protective orders are concerned I have not been invited to make any orders, and consider the Supervision Order support plan and the Working Together agreement sufficient to set expectations for all.
Therefore I make the Special Guardianship Order in favour of A and B, and a Supervision Order for 12 months to the Local Authority. In making these orders I consider that they are necessary and proportionate and meet Z’s welfare interests throughout her life.
That is my judgment.
Recorder Fiona Williams
19 November 2025