London Borough of A v The Mother & Ors

The father and the mother both love their children.

They want the children back in their care. That is what Child D, Child C and Child E want to. I have heard that loud and clear.

Child F wants to stay in foster care.

Everyone agrees Child C should stay with his father.

The father can be warm and affectionate to his children. He wants the best for them, that is why he came to the UK. The mother is committed to her boys even though they are a long way away. She wants to be with them. The parents have come to almost every hearing. They have spoken in court for their boys.

These boys have had a lot of change in their lives. They moved to the UK from Country Z and did not have secure housing. They moved schools. They suffered neglect.

The father has been convicted of Actual Bodily Harm against Child F and pleaded guilty to criminal damage. Child C has been convicted of assault against school staff and police. The family do not believe Child F. There is a background of violence being treated as normal in this family. The mother, Half-Sibling Q and Child F say they have been assaulted by the Father. The mother hits the children in Country Z. The boys have physical fights between themselves. The family minimise or deny this.

We tried returning Child D and Child E home on a trial basis. They did not get to school reliably, or on time. They were tired. Child C tried to look after them. The home was not clean and tidy. The Father struggled to work with the Social worker and the Guardian and was aggressive to them in front of the children. His health makes it hard for him to meet his boys’ needs. He would struggle to teach his children not to fight each other or be aggressive when they don’t get what they want. Child F has been treated as a scapegoat by the family.

It is not realistic for any of the children to go to Country Z. Their [redacted language] is rusty and they would not be able to catch up at school in time for important exams. They do not want to go there.

There is harm from the boys being in foster care. However, there is greater harm in them returning to their parents.

I think it is best for Child F, Child D and Child E to stay in the Local authority care.

I hope that the family can see each other every week and begin to rebuild relationships with Child F.

Today I am concerned with Child C, born on [date]; I am concerned with Child D born on [date]; Child E, born on [date]; and Child F, born on [date]. This is the Local Authority’s application for care orders dated 22 June 2023.

The parties to these proceedings are: the London Borough of A represented by Mr Marks; The father represented today by Mr McWatters, previously represented in this part-heard final hearing by Ms More O’Ferrall; The mother represented by Mr Jones; and the children represented by Mr Drayton through their Guardian, Ms Ali (papers in this document refer also to her maiden name, Ms Downs).

The hearing was conducted on 5 and 6 August 2025 and due to continue on the 7, 8 and 12August 2025. However, it was adjourned on 7 August because the father was unwell and had attended hospital on 5 and 6 August and a stroke was suspected.

I gave further directions on 4 September 2025, heard evidence from the father and the Guardian on 9 October 2025, heard submissions on 10 October and give judgment today, 15 October 2025.

The parents have been in court for the plain language summary and their representatives remain in court for this full judgment.

The opening positions in August were as follows:

The positions are now as follows:

This judgment must be read in conjunction with the judgment of October 2024 and on that occasion I set out the procedural chronology up to that date. At the final hearing in October 2024 everyone agreed that the children should be reunited with their father and go home, save for Child F who did not wish to, but there was a difference of opinion about whether this could happen now, when it should happen, and under what legal framework given that the father’s criminal proceedings had yet to conclude.

I decided I could not make final orders with the criminal trial outstanding, but did approve a plan whereby Child E and Child D would spend more time at home, including weekends and some time during half term, for a period of testing.

I commented in my 2024 judgment on what needed to happen next. The parenting course for the father needed to be finished. There needs to be therapeutic underpinning of work with the family, a Care Act assessment for the father with adult social care, a written agreement needed to be made. The father needed to keep working with the social worker and I said in my judgment that the father and the social worker have a good working relationship and I found that if the father is to be able to meet the children’s needs he will need to work with others to do so and there is a encouraging pattern here that needs to be sustained and developed further in his working relationships. I set out that contact could increase if all goes well, and that the time with the father could be regularly reviewed. There was to be additional half-turn contact in October 2024, agreed for everyone, and some extra time at Christmas. This was a testing period for the children’s time with their father.

That testing period began. Then on 26 and 27 February 2025, first Child D and then Child E left school during the day and went to their father’s and refused to return to foster care. They were therefore in the father’s care throughout his criminal trial.

On 5 March 2025 the father was convicted of ABH in relation to Child F. On 18 March I received a recovery order application. On 19 March 2025 I made a recovery order. On 24 April 2025 there was an IRH and pretrial review listed for the final hearing in August 2025. I approved further questions to be sent to the independent social worker in Country Z. None were sent. I made a deadline for any expert evidence to be applied for by way of Part 25, the deadline being 27 May 2025. None was made. I made it clear if there was to be an application for a competency assessment of the children this must be done too by 27 May 2025.

The court was informed that Dr Wolfson had retired for more than 12 months. He was no longer a member of any regulatory body and did not hold professional insurance. I said that any application to call Dr Wolfson would need specific justification.

On 30 May 2025 a pretrial review was listed but vacated by consent as the father’s sentencing was adjourned. Time was extended for any application to call the independent social worker in Country Z to give oral evidence to 16 June 2025. I gave the parties until 16 June 2025 to make any Part 25 application if it was their position that any or all of the children should be in Country Z, and specified what that application must contain.

On 3 June 2025 the father made an application for a competency assessment of the children and on 16 June 2025 he was sentenced to an 18-month community order with a 30-day rehabilitation activity requirement.

There was a pretrial review on 20 June 2025. I extended at the time for the mother to file her final evidence until 24 June 2025 and the mother at that hearing supported the father’s position, and through her solicitor did not seek to give evidence. I did not grant the application for a competency assessment.

On 30 June 2025 the mother’s final statement came in.

On 8 July 2025 the mother made an application to give evidence, together with the maternal uncle and the independent social worker from Country Z.

I had an application from the father on 11 July 2025 for defined contact.

I had a case management hearing on 14 July 2025 which listed the applications and also required C2 applications to be made to address non-compliance.

I granted, on 27 July 2025, the mother’s application to give evidence but with very specific conditions about the deadline for the maternal uncle’s statement and the control of evidence, including the witness template and timings and the expectation as to how court time would be used.

On 28 July 2025 the mother made an application for non-compliance and filed late the evidence of the maternal uncle.

We began the hearing on 5 August and, as I have said, it was adjourned on 7 August due to the father’s ill health. Since then the following applications and directions have been made:

Since August Child D moved from the foster carer where he was with Child E, into residential care.

I remind myself of the law. The Local Authority bring this case and it is for them to prove on the balance of probabilities. I need to decide which version of events is more likely than not to be true on the evidence. I remind myself, in accordance with the case of Re T[2004] 2 FLR 838, that I need to consider all the evidence in this case. Evidence cannot be evaluated in separate compartments. A judge in these difficult cases must have regard to each piece of evidence and its relevance to the other, and exercise an overview of the totality of the evidence to come to a conclusion. Findings of fact must be based on evidence, including inferences that may be drawn, and not suspicion or speculation.

I have a number of documents in the bundles before me which are hearsay, in particular the contact notes and the foster carer logs, among others. These have not been tested in cross-examination. I remind myself of the limitations of that type of evidence and the weight to be given to that hearsay evidence is a matter for me to decide. Hearsay may weigh less heavily in the balance because it has not been tested in cross-examination in court.

I remind myself of the wise and powerful words of Mr Justice Hedley in Re L (Care Threshold Criteria) [2007] 1FLR 2050: “Society must be willing to tolerate the very diverse standards of parenting, including the eccentric, the barely adequate, and the inconsistent”.

I remind myself too of the no-delay principle and of the time frame for proceedings. The delay, as my October 2024 judgment shows, has been in part due to the criminal investigation and proceedings. This is the third part-heard final hearing. At every stage the court has in my view tried to resolve things without delay. At the October 2024 hearing I was driven to the conclusion that I could not bring proceedings to an end whilst the criminal trial was about to start, for the reasons I set out in that judgment. In August we could not resolve these proceedings due to illness and nobody opposed an application to adjourn. Mr Drayton submits that at every stage the delay here has been necessary or purposeful.

The London Practice Note at 2025 stresses that where a foreign placement is considered, early applications for expert opinion assessment should be a priority. That was not in force, of course, for most of this case but the court identified, and it is set out very clearly in the case management orders, that there was a link to Country Z that needed to be investigated from the earliest orders that I have made. The parties’ positions through these proceedings have shifted continually as to regard to whether any of the children should be placed in Country Z and with whom. For the avoidance of doubt I therefore consider all options in this judgment.

I set out the law in relation to the voice of the child and the importance of hearing it in my competency judgment and I will not repeat it here, but I have met Child C on 9 September 2024, 3 October 2024 and 31 July 2025. I have met Child D three times: 3 October 2024, 19 December 2024 and 10 October 2025. I met Child E with Child D on 3 October 2024. Child F did not wish to meet me. I have written to Child D, Child E and Child C after the October 2024 hearing.

In terms of procedure we have used an interpreter for the mother throughout who was joined by the link from Country Z. I have followed Dr Wolfson’s guidance about any special measures for the mother, that she needs questions to be clear and precise and needs time to respond. I have not been alerted by the advocates to any unfairness under Article 6 and I have done my best to create a level playing field.

I turn to the evidence. I have read the bundles and every supplemental bundle with which I have been provided. I have kept a copy of every bundle which has been uploaded in the portal and have been able to refer back as I have needed to during the preparation of this judgment. I have my notes of the evidence, both from 2020-24 and from 2020-25.

I have explained already that Dr Wolfson was not available to give evidence, because he had retired at the time of the August 2025 hearing. The father’s advocate who represented him at the pretrial review made it clear she would have called him, although it was not clear to me what she wanted to ask him and he was not called at the October 2024 hearing. Nobody asked to call him then and his evidence was not challenged. My October 2024 judgment makes it clear that Dr Wolfson could have been called in October 2024 and time was set aside on that occasion for this purpose.

The parenting assessment of the father was not challenged in the witness box. In October 2024 Mr Drayton made it clear the elephant in the room in that parenting assessment was not knowing the outcome of the criminal trial and the lack of resolution for facts about Child F.

The independent social worker who assessed the mother and her family gave evidence from Country Z. I had understood she would give evidence from her offices but it transpired she was giving evidence from the uncle’s property. She was a witness who had a clear and reasonable desire to promote the boys’ heritage from Country Z. This is laudable in itself but sometimes this eclipses the other factors that the court has to weigh in the balance in her evidence. For example, when asked about the children’s stated wishes, which were not to go to Country Z, she thought that they were mixed up because they have been away from Country Z for two years at the point she spoke to them, and she thought their wishes are not clear and have been impacted by their absence from Country Z so that they cannot make a proper decision. Her evidence was that we would convince them that going to Country Z was a good idea.

She maintained clearly in cross-examination that it was unthinkable that the children should be placed with the mother given the conclusions she had drawn about the mother in her assessment of her, and she did not support the placement of the children with their mother. However she did not seem to grasp the point that the mother living near to the maternal uncle raises concerns about his insight into the mother’s parenting and she said the maternal family knew the mother hit the children. She was right to stress that the mother would need support from her family but was not able to grasp that the fact that the maternal uncle had not intervened and supported the mother to date might suggest he had insufficient grasp of the risks the mother posed.

Overall, the independent social worker’s evidence underplayed the children’s emotional needs, which she seemed to suggest would simply be met by being in the atmosphere of the wider family in Country Z. In fairness to the independent social worker, the emotional needs of the children had become far more complex since she met them two years ago, but nevertheless she seemed to underestimate the scale of the challenge posed in caring for these boys who have suffered so much harm and change already.

The father’s evidence, given in October 2025, was that the independent social worker was corrupt and she had been threatened by his wife, and the maternal uncle, to come to their house. He said that lots of parts of her report have been fabricated, such as the maternal uncle’s report of the father’s violence to the independent social worker and the independent social worker’s view that the mother was passive. None of this had been put to the independent social worker. When asked why he did not raise this with the court that an expert witness had been threatened, he said he did not have the chance to speak until now. I found that unconvincing. He has made his position perfectly clear through counsel on other matters or his views have manifested in questions to witnesses, applications or submissions to the court.

The social worker, Ms Monteith, was a balanced, measured and thoughtful witness in her evidence. She was the social worker between November 2023 and May 2025. She knew the boys well and clearly had a great deal of compassion for them. What struck me about both her written and her oral evidence is the extent to which she was able to put herself in the father’s shoes and tried to see things from his perspective. For example, when telling the court of the couple of occasions on which he had shouted at her, she put it in the context of the fact that she had been visiting every day at this point and that it must have been hard for him. She explained that after the October 2024 hearing the Local Authority wanted to trial the return of Child D and Child E to their father’s care. She said: “I hoped it would be positive and that the father could demonstrate he could care for them on a permanent basis.” However, her evidence was clear that the school raised concerns very quickly and the boys were tired. She said there was a change in their attitude when they spent time in their father’s care at the weekends and she recalled that the home was not hygienic.

The maternal uncle is clearly a loving uncle who speaks for the entire maternal family when he says that they would wish for Child D, Child E and Child F to be cared for in Country Z. He has put himself forward in good faith and clearly wants the best for his nephews. His evidence, however, was often focused on the material support that he could offer the boys in terms of housing, for example, and again, underestimated the emotional support that they would need in line with the independent social worker. He had a rather simplistic view: if he could just speak to the children they would want to come to Country Z and they would change their minds. In fairness to him, he has received a lot of documents at relatively short notice and has not been able to follow the path of this case in the way that other witnesses and parties have. However, even taking that into account it seems he had not fully grasped the emotional impact on the boys of being separated from their father and Child C in the UK and of these proceedings themselves. He often struggled to answer questions directly and that may well have been in part due to the use of an interpreter, however it was particularly marked in relation to when he was asked about physical chastisement and he responded to the effect that he and his wife are educated, which missed the point and came across as somewhat evasive.

Listening to the mother’s evidence, I was struck by what a difficult position she has been in during her proceedings. Her evidence was that the father took her oldest four boys to the UK so they could be naturalised with the expectation that she would follow shortly after with their other children. However, her applications to the Home Office for family reunification visas to allow her and the four youngest children to come to the UK have not been successful. She told me that although a visit visa might have been possible she had the children at home in Country Z to look after. Essentially, the mother waved goodbye to her sons for what she thought would be a short trip before they would be together again, only to find herself in court when the boys were removed into foster care. She used the word “ordeal” to describe the experience of the boys and I think that could be used to describe her position too.

The mother was asked at length about domestic abuse. It does not feature in her witness statements but was picked up by the independent social worker, somewhat tangentially, in her written report. But the mother spoke openly and fluently about it. This was unstudied and compelling evidence. She gave evidence of a pattern of abuse spanning over 19 years. The father’s decision to leave two of his oldest children in her care from his first marriage and go to London, leaving his debts behind in Country Z without thinking through how he would support her, put her in a very vulnerable position.

However, despite her detailed description of a controlling, coercive dynamic in the relationship and of serious physical abuse that she maintained the father had meted out on her over a period of years, she continued to hold the view that the father was able to meet the children’s needs and that she had never seen him harm the children. She also described herself as an excellent parent, even after the shortcomings identified in the parenting assessment were put specifically to her.

She struck me, sadly, as naive in the extreme. She has been trusting the father, even when his behaviour and poor decision-making might have led her to conclude that he did not always have her best interests at heart.

The team manager produced a statement at court in the August hearing which set out the support the children and the father would be offered should they return to his care or stay in foster care. She gave evidence and was an impressive and authoritative witness who had a clear grasp of the complexities of the case, even though she had only been team manager since early June. She did not minimise the risks of the boys leaving their placements but also pointed to the positive factors and at that time, despite a very anxious time for Child D he was clear he wanted to stay with his foster carer and had not tried to leave.

The father was a defensive and evasive witness. He said that the mother, Child F and the maternal uncle had all lied when they had accused him of physical violence. He said the independent social worker from Country Z was corrupt and that the maternal uncle had threatened her. I understand that he is very upset and deeply saddened at having been separated from his children for so long, but he used emotive and colourful language at times which raised the emotional temperature of his evidence considerably. For example, when he referred to the children in foster care he said that they experienced “rape and strangulation”. I have gone back to the original records of their reports and at the very highest what the children have described does not approximate to those words. Those safeguarding concerns have been fully investigated.

He continued to deny the facts that I found on previous occasions and the facts underpinning the criminal conviction. He seemed to place responsibility for everything externally and take very little responsibility himself. Mr McWatters makes the persuasive submission that the father as a witness is different from the father as a parent and so I remind myself of the wise and powerful words of Lady Justice Macur in Re M (Children), which emphasises:

“It is advisable that any judge appraising witnesses in the emotionally-charged atmosphere of a contested family dispute should warn themselves to guard against an assessment solely by virtue of their behaviour in the witness box and to expressly indicate that I have done so.”

I will therefore look very carefully in this judgment as to whether the father’s behaviour in the proceedings is consistent with his presentation in the witness box to discern whether it was the stress of the final hearing that simply made it hard for him to accept matters that were put to him. I noted in my 2024 judgment that he came across in a different way. “He was very eager,” I wrote, “to help the court”, but that was not the thrust and focus of his evidence this time.

The Guardian was a calm and clear witness and she was steadfast in her recommendation that the younger boys remain in Local Authority care. She was concerned about the father’s tendency to place blame on everyone except himself and she did not think there was a realistic package of support that could help the children to remain at home. She gave evidence that she had seen a change in the father since October 2024. “In the past”, she said: “we have been able to have a respectful conversation and when I bring up topics he does not agree with, that is now when he can become quite angry and aggressive. If he was working with the Local Authority in future”, she said: “I question how productive it can be if he responds with aggression and this is not an isolated thing, it is something we’ve seen on a number of times with both me and the previous social worker.”

I turn to the threshold criteria. In my judgment of 8 October 2024 I said that there was a pretrial review at which a threshold document was presented to me as agreed. However, during the course of the October 2024 hearing the father’s evidence in the witness box caused me to question whether all of the document was accepted. I therefore gave his counsel at that hearing, Ms Wilson, permission to speak to him overnight after his evidence had finished, to alert me if he needed to be recalled. She did not ask me to recall him.

I noted in my judgment in October 2024 that I had dealt with the elements of threshold that the father appeared to dispute in the witness box and went through each to be clear that I was making findings. I also revisited my notes at the hearing of 8 October 2024, recording that Mr Drayton asked for specific points of clarification to confirm that I found that the threshold annexed to the order of 20 September 2024 was found to be made out and I confirm that that is exactly what my judgment found. I therefore find that the threshold criteria have already been met in relation to Child C, Child D and Child E.

What remains of the threshold are the elements that relate to Child F, some of which are drafted in identical terms to those that relate to his brothers and the facts arising out of his allegation of physical abuse. The conviction of the father means that the Child F’s account has been found to be true beyond reasonable doubt in the criminal court. No party has asked me to go behind this and this court cannot do so. Therefore, the elements of the threshold relating to physical abuse are made out.

In relation to the other aspects of the threshold insofar as they relate to Child F it is pleaded that there was a child protection medical on 21 June at H21 of the bundle. I could not find this document at H21 of the current bundle but I did find it at H21 of the bundle, dated 23 April 2025. There is a letter from Dr Caller dated 21 June 2023 which records a physical examination of Child F of that date. It finds:

“Hair: Normal. Some matting noted.

Mouth: Very poor oral hygiene. Yellowish and plaques noted on the lower jaw.

Feet: Normal. Toenails noted to be dirty.”

By this stage, Child F had been in foster care for two days. He was police protected on 19 June 2023. I therefore find this element of the drafting of threshold made out.

The father has neither appealed my threshold findings in relation to the older boys and nor has he been questioned further on threshold matters. The underlying premise of the findings made in October 2024 and the criminal conviction for ABH mean that in effect the findings for Child F have been determined and I find the threshold pleaded for Child F made out. No submissions were made on the father’s behalf against this, and no new evidence was brought forward that would lead me to revisit my findings or determine that for Child F he was in a different position from his brothers.

I look at all the circumstances of the case and of course the welfare of the boys is my paramount consideration. I look at their ascertainable wishes and feelings in the light of their age and understanding. I recorded the boys’ wishes and feelings expressly in my October 2024 judgment. Mr Drayton submits if there were ever a case in which the children’s wishes and feelings have been loud and clear, it is this one. He submits that every hearing, through the evidence of the Guardian and the submissions of counsel for the parents, their voice and their views has been made heard. I am satisfied that their Article 6 rights have been respected throughout.

Child D has been clear that he wishes to return to his father’s care. I set out in my October 2024 that there was one occasion his learning mentor had a phone conversation with the foster carers on 20 September 2024. The learning mentor tells the foster carer that Child F shared that he does not want to live with dad; he is scared to say this to anyone. He shared that the boys used to fight all the time when they lived at home and he is scared of his older brother whom they call “Fat Boy”. The social worker gave evidence that Child D was not happy that this had been shared with the court and speculated that the doubling down of his position was a response to this and that he may have felt ashamed or embarrassed that this had been shared.

The social worker in evidence highlighted the complexities of Child D’s feelings. She gave evidence during the weekend of contact he did not seem very happy at the time but she could not say all the reasons for his distress. In March 2024 Ms Monteith spoke to Child D about Country Z and how strange it was to come to the UK and not know what the teachers were saying. He shared his views about Country Z then, that he does not want to go back to Country Z and has forgotten how to read and write [redacted language]. He shared, however, some fond memories of playing with his brothers in Country Z. When he spoke to the independent social worker in Country Z he was clear he did not want to go back to Country Z and has declined to express a view when asked since. There is some complexity, therefore, to Child D’s wishes and feelings but the overriding message he has sent is that he would like to go back to his father.

Child E is clear he wants to go back to his father and that wish has been consistent. In June 2023 Child E and Child D both spoke to the social worker about their house in Country Z and Child E said he prefers Country Z to England because he was a lot smarter there. However, his view seems to have changed. A visit was arranged to see Child E in April 2025 at school, but the social worker could not meet him due to illness and that meeting did not go ahead. Instead, Child E’s foster carer spoke to him instead and I can see the original entry in the foster carer notes at M269 where Child E shares that he does not want to go to Country Z.

Child F said of February 2024 that he does not want to see anyone from his family. In April 2024 he was asked during a statutory visit if he would like to go back to his father’s care, to which he responded: “I don’t know.” The social worker and police officer who spoke to him recorded he seemed uncomfortable, shifting in his chair and fiddling.

On 24 June 2024 the social worker visited Child F at school along with a Detective Constable in order to speak to him about his father’s criminal charges. When asked by the Detective Constable whether he would like to live with his father he hesitated for a moment before shaking his head and said: “No.”

Since he gave evidence in the criminal court in 2024 he has expressly stated that he does not wish to see his father and his mother and the social work chronology sets out how clearly he is been asked about this and how repeatedly he has been asked about this and encouraged to see them by the social worker. I think, for example, of the entries at C191 of the bundle. His views as at 25 March 2025 is he wanted to stay in foster care and did not wish to speak to his mother and father.

In July 2025, this remained his view when he spoke to the Guardian. He was clear he did not want to speak to his mother and father and said: “Not happening. I don’t want it and I don’t like it when I keep getting asked.” When asked about going to Country Z, he said: “No. No way. I’d run away if I was forced to go there.” That was consistent with the social work evidence that she spoke to Child F on many occasions and he told her he did not want to go to Country Z.

Child C has been very clear that he wants his brothers to come home and he wants to stay with his father. He was particularly concerned about Child D and said he has not seen Child F and he wanted to see him. In relation to Country Z, Child C said to the school in May 2025 that he did not really want to go to Country Z. That was consistent with the wishes he expressed to me when we met in July 2025, that he did not want his brothers to go to Country Z. He wanted everybody to be at home with his father, and the family in Country Z he wanted to come here.

In looking at the children’s wishes and feelings, I know that the children love their father and they have a secure attachment with him and Dr Wolfson writes to that effect, but he also suggests that the father’s parenting behaviour at times puts their relationship under strain and causes them upset and distress.

It is right, when I look at the children’s wishes and feelings, to chart any influence that the father or indeed Child C may have had on them throughout these proceedings. The first social worker, Darian, tells Dr Wolfson that Child D is trying to support his dad’s narrative. “There is a loyalty there in that they do not want to take into contact things their foster carer has given them,” the social worker says. The social worker view at that time is the children are just saying what their dad has told them to say: “they know what is expected of them”. That dynamic, on one analysis of the evidence, has become increasingly apparent over the course of the court proceedings. I know that the father does not and has never agreed to the boys being in foster care but it seems at times he has struggled to give them the emotional permission to settle there and not to return home during the trial period, but instead he has struggled to give them the support they need to move between him and the foster carer on a trial basis and increasingly in these proceedings I think we have seen the development of an “us-and-them” mentality between the fathers and the professionals. These boys love, they idolise their father, however, he has not always been careful about what he says to them and the impact that it might have on them.

We see this through the foster carer notes and also through the contact notes. Some of these contact notes date back to 2023, so of course I put them in the context of the broader evidence, some of which is more recent, but at I-14 of the bundle the father says: “Do you want to go home? Do you love me? From 1 to 10 how much do you want to come home? Do you want to come home?” he asked the children. That is on 11 July 2023.

There is I-61 of the bundle. That is 21 August 2023. Dad asks the children how they are and Child D explains he has tried to run away. “They have taken your toys away.” Does not respond when he asks the children individually: “How are you? Do you want to come home?” and all the children reply quietly: “Yes.”

There is I-69 of the bundle. This relates to 29 August 2023. Child E and Child F share that Child D does not listen to the foster carer, he breaks the rules and is disrespectful to her which is why he is told off. Child D became upset. The father did not talk to Child D about his actions but excused his behaviour being down to him being frustrated, not having his voice heard and wanting to come home. The contact session was based around the father asking the boys numerous questions and it made it come across as a form of emotional intimidation for them to answer with what he wants to hear.

I look at I-81 of the bundle. This is later, in September 2023. Dad discreetly chats to Child D. “You have been asking for more contacts. Do you want to see your parents?” Child D replies and looks at the ground. Dad asks Child D: “Ask them to take you to the doctors. It could be chicken pox. They move on to talk about some spots around his ankle.”

Finally, I-173. This is November 2023. The father asks Child F if he misses them and he still wants to go back. Child F did not reply and I am not sure if he heard the father. And then the conversation moves on.

I have re-watched the body-worn camera footage of Child E from November 2023. This is when Child E returns to his father’s house and it clearly shows the father leading the conversation, suggesting to Child E what had happened into foster care. The police officer repeatedly asked the father not to intervene and to let Child E speak. The father says in the police presence in front of the boys that the foster carer’s action is “attempted murder”. He refers to the foster carer as trying to poison the child. The police officer tells the father: “You are coaching him what to say and you have been since we’ve been here.”

When the officers return Child E to the foster carer, I have seen the body-worn camera footage, and they gain the clear impression that Child E’s father and brother have told him to be unco-operative with them. It is a deeply upsetting recording to watch. The police notes record that when Child E is returned to his foster carer, she takes the view that he ran away because it was pre-planned and the father was coercing him. Of course, all of that is hearsay and none of it has been put to the father in the witness box but it is part of the broad canvas that the court must survey.

The independent social worker confirmed in the witness box that when she met Child C he started telling her that the brothers were happy in foster care, at which point the father terminated the call, and when it resumed she heard the father saying to Child C that he should tell her that his brothers are in a terrible situation.

When I gave judgment in 2024 I found that the father caused the children emotional harm by discussing proceedings with them and that it made them nervous and anxious, so if he was not aware before then of the risks arising from involving children in adult discussions, he should have been fully aware thereafter. However, the evidence after that suggests that father is still drawing the children into the adult world of proceedings and decision-making. The Guardian’s final analysis of July 2025 says, “I do have concerns about what the father is sharing with Child C in these care proceedings. He recently told his teachers that the court proceedings has ended and his brothers will be going home”.

I note that in the recovery order proceedings the Local Authority record that the father said that the children’s mother is dying of cancer which adds to his stress. He said this in front of Child D and Child C before stating that Child D was previously not aware of this and should not have found out under these circumstances. This appears to have been said on 26 February 2025. Looking at the social work chronology on C192 there is an entry on 21 March 2025 which seems to suggest that something similar was said on that occasion.

The father in the witness box denied saying this, however I think it unlikely that the social worker will have misunderstood or misrecorded something so significant twice, and the father does speak in an emotive way. The written social work evidence is that the father mentioned his wife’s cancer on two separate occasions. The mother told me in the witness box there was a suspicion at one point of breast cancer but they took a sample and it came back clear. I am glad to hear that, but Child D and Child E would have understood from what the father said in front of them to the social worker that their mother was seriously ill or even dying.

The father has been aggressive to the social worker and the Guardian in front of the children, which will have had an influence on how the boys see these people who are trying to help them. When they were recovered from the father’s after the recovery order was made they went to a foster carer called [name]. Initially, having looked at the foster carer notes, there were no phones available to the boys but then one was bought for them on 8 April 2025. Looking across the foster carer notes, Child D seems to be settling in initially and then his behaviour deteriorates and it seems that the longer he spends speaking on the phone, the worse his behaviour gets. The foster carer notes recall that the foster carer thinks he is speaking to an adult male. For example, there is an entry on 20 April 2025: “Up late on the phone. I feel that Child C is influencing Child D as I can hear Child C’s voice on the phone.” The phone is periodically taken away at nights on occasions such as on 24 April 2025 but this becomes increasingly difficult.

The Guardian, in preparing her final report in July 2025 notes that “ever since the overnights Child D has presented as defensive, disrespectful, particularly to women, and not willing to listen to anyone other than his father, although the overnight stays were stopped when Child D went back to his current foster carer and where he still has ongoing phone contact with his father and there are no boundaries around this despite the Foster Carer trying his best”. That is consistent with the foster carer notes which I have read in their entirety.

The Guardian goes on:

“There was a recent event where Child D was at a phone call to his father after 11pm when he had school the next day. The Foster Carer reported he contacted the father and asked that he respect Child D needs to go to sleep earlier so he is not tired for school, and the father hung up that phone call.”

I look at the male foster carer notes of 17 July 2025 that:

“Child D is now threateningly like he threatened his court-appointed Guardian when she came to visit a few weeks ago.”

He expresses the view several days later:

“I feel that his father or Child C might be behind this to create problems.”

On 25 July:

“I feel that Child D is doing these things intentionally to create problems. Maybe he is instructed by someone.”

Child D is, according to the foster carer notes, allowed to go out on his own and in July, just before the placement breakdown on the 29^th, the foster carer writes:

“I am quite certain Child D went to meet his father today. Since Child D came to placement he has never gone to meet any friends.”

There is also an occasion where Child C calls for Child D. That is 12 July 2025 and when the time comes for Child D to leave the placement, the foster carer notes contemporaneously:

“Child D was on the phone talking to his father. When he opened his door he said he was not going nowhere as his father does not know about the move.”

That is very similar to the social work evidence. The social worker, Mr Klein, in his statement noted on 4 August 2025 he tried to persuade Child D to go to respite care. There was a long call between Child D and his father in both English and [redacted language].

“Following this call I noticed a deterioration in Child D’s behaviour and he became verbally abusive to the social worker.”

The father’s evidence when I asked him in October 2025 is that both boys, that is Child D and Child E, have phones and he used to speak to them daily but now the phones are taken at night and the internet is switched off.

I am very mindful that not all of those foster entries were put in evidence and we have not had the foster carer give evidence to be directly challenged about it, but looking at the broad sweep of the evidence, on one analysis Child D’s use of the phone and daily contact with his father coincides with a period of deteriorating behaviour. I do not make any specific findings about this but it is part of the wide canvas I must survey and the Guardian’s view is that there has been a drastic shift in the way Child D speaks to others that is the mirror image of his father. After June 2025, for example, he called the Guardian “incompetent” which was a word that he could not define for her. That may be coincidence, but it was after a hearing at which competency was discussed.

The newly appointed team manager rightly identifies in my view that the father is a pivotal person for these boys and a lot rests on him giving them emotional permission to remain in placement in order for them to be able to settle. She took the view that where the children’s mistrust of professionals come from is questionable. She said they have split loyalties to their father and how this relates to their relationships with professionals. She also pointed to the early trauma they have experienced in their parents’ care. But it seems to me that Child D in particular is influenced by his contact with his father and with Child C. The views of the boys have, in my view, at times, been influenced by the views of their father and their older brother and I find that the father has not shielded them from the emotional impact of the proceedings but at times has drawn them in.

I look at their physical, emotional and educational needs. In relation to Child C I set out in my previous judgment his special needs. He now has an EHCP plan and the support of a behaviour mentor was given to him when he was at school. When he left school he got an award for the most improved student. He had plans to go to college in this September 2025 but the father gave evidence they have not been able to get him into college and at present he is not in education or training. The father said Child C had lots of activities but did not tell me what they were.

The evidence clearly shows that Child C has difficulty with emotional regulation in the past. He has a conditional discharge for his assault of the police officers and teachers in 2023. He needs the adult around him to help him manage his emotions. It is clear from the events of 2023 that his father was unable to help him model restraint on that occasion. But since being at school, Child C has made significant progress with his emotional regulation. The staff report to the social worker that he is increasingly able to remove himself from conflict and the social worker notes in March 2025 when Child D was getting upset, Child C made the wise decision not to join the conversation because he did not want to get upset and not be able to come down.

However, there is also an incident in February 2025 in the social work evidence at C200 that Child C arrived at school complaining of a sore rib. He told his mentor he had been taking his brothers to school that morning and a boy has insulted him verbally. Child C pushed the boy who then pushed him in the ribs and Child C punched him on the nose. Child C said the fight was broken up by a man passing by. So there is a mixed picture here and Child C needs consistent support to ensure he is not further involved in incidents that cause him to respond in a physically aggressive manner.

Child C is very protective as a big brother and cares passionately for his younger brothers. He is increasingly independent and the social worker has seen him cooking a meal for the family, I have also referred to the report of him taking his younger brothers to school, and there is a danger if the younger brothers were returned home he would take on a greater caring role given his father’s health difficulties. This was actually picked up by Dr Mitas right at the beginning of these proceedings where he reports:

“I am told that Child C loves his father and I witnessed the way he relates to him confirms this. I also suspect he acts as a carer for his father given his father’s multitude of physical and mental health problems.”

Child D’s emotional world is complex. He is described in an early social work statement as being calm, well-behaved, thoughtful, with a lovely sweet nature but he has become increasingly angry during these proceedings and the foster carer notes from the Foster Carer are truly distressing to read as he presents as increasingly difficult to live with. The social worker gave evidence that she and the foster carer have noticed increasingly difficult behaviour since he began spending long with his father and this conflict led to a placement breakdown in February 2025, with Child D increasingly angry and suspicious of social workers. It seems to me that the removal from his father’s care has had a significant impact on Child D, and a permanent removal would also be a deeply significant event for him and the social worker, in evidence, accepted it would be a significant blow.

However, he is also described as a model student at school. He has friends, he has done his bronze DofE, and even when he was with his father and got to school late, he did take himself there. He is currently in a residential placement and is said to have settled well. He certainly has not tried to leave that placement. But it seems to me that Child D needs clear boundaries, emotional support and understanding to make sense of what has happened for the past few years. He also needs help to relate to the world without anger and aggression if he is to make the transition to the adult world without involvement in the criminal justice system.

Child E too has been angry at times during foster care. In 2024, July, there was a stability meeting because Child E had been hitting his brothers and on one occasion his foster carer. He at times finds school difficult but he is settled in the Foster Carer’s care and despite the foster carer notes that chart Child D’s difficulties, Child E seems to be relating well to that family and appears settled.

I look at the boys’ education, and there was a significant decline in their attendance and punctuality during the time they remained in their father’s care earlier this year, the social worker gave evidence. Child C is described as trying to wake up his brothers in the morning for school and being frustrated if they do not get up. In foster care their attendance was nearly 100 per cent but when they stayed at home there were days that they did not go in at all, or Child D would wake up late and sometimes make it into the school just for afternoon lessons. The boys shared with their learning mentor, according to the social worker, that they were tired because they were on their phones and they slept when they liked and got up when they liked. She said one of them told the learning mentor they did not have to go into school if they did not want to. This is consistent with the observation of the foster carers during this testing period. When the boys got home after seeing their father they immediately went to sleep. This is sadly not a new concern. The London Borough of B papers back in 2021 show a similar concern raised by the schools with the social worker then about the boys not having a healthy sleep routine.

When asked about the drop in school attendance when the boys were in his care, The father replied:

“You have to stabilise the situation and repair the bond. They did not have a chance to catch their breath and cope with a new system. They’re being moved in foster care and their follow-up is disturbed and they need somewhere safe with stability.”

He did not engage with counsel’s questions about their poor attendance during that time.

Child D is in year 10 and so has made his GCSE choices and Child E is in those important years running up to GCSEs. Child F is in year 7, having just started secondary school.

The family in Country Z are described by the independent social worker as well-off and well-educated but I do not know what type of schools the boys would be offered there. The boys are able to speak some [redacted language] but I get the impression they are less fluent than they used to be. The independent social worker gave evidence that the main school exams in Country Z are taken aged 17 to 18 and for Child D that is not far away. Although some international schools teach in English, she said, others teach in [redacted language] and it may be hard for the boys to be taught in [redacted language] given that they have not done their schoolwork in this language for some time. Whatever school was found, it seems likely to me that the curriculum, culture and style of teaching would be different from the schooling they have had in the UK and particularly in Child D’s case he does not have long before important exams and so this has a bearing on his future prospects.

Child F is doing well in school, particularly maths. He was made Year 6 ambassador before he left primary school, with the responsibility for encouraging younger children. He chose his own secondary school and requested not to be at the same school as his brothers. He is described as thriving in foster care. But he has emotional needs too - the need to be heard, the need to be understood and treated as a valuable member of his family.

I look at the likely effect on the boys of any change of circumstances. The boys came to the UK in 2020. They have not been back to Country Z since and their family in Country Z has not been able to come here. This was a deeply difficult change of circumstances. The boys moved from being part of a wider family with their mother and half siblings to being with their father in the UK with different languages, different education systems and different cultural outlooks. In 2022 Child C is recorded as telling the father he did not want to come to the UK and so clearly did not find it easy to settle at first. Since being in the UK they have had a number of changes of school and housing, which would have been destabilising. The removal to foster care was a very significant change and they have had a number of changes of carer since, all deeply unsettling.

The change of circumstances in October 2024, with increased time with their father, was one that everyone agreed to. More time with their father was that everyone was working to, with the prospect of increasing. But I look at how that increase of time impacted the children. The statement of Ms Monteith sets out that Child E and Child D enjoyed their time with Child C and their father, however she also records that the foster carers have seen some change in Child D, describing him as defiant and demanding in contrast to his usual mild mannered, polite character. For example, he becomes angry with them around 9 PM, the time at which Wi-Fi is switched off, and more difficult to wake in the morning. The foster carers and the school professionals raise concern about the impact of family time with the father. For example, the Monday morning when the boys returned to school, the school reported they had not slept properly and that impacts their concentration.

The increase of time with their father coincides with Child F withdrawing from family time. I am not saying it is causative, because it was also around the time he gave evidence in the criminal trial, but from November 2024, Child F has refused to take part in supervised contact sessions and reportedly enjoyed weekends with his foster carers without his brothers there.

On 5 December 2024, the foster carer reports to the social workers that Child D and Child E refused to go to bed and kept the carers and Child F awake. And they report that change after they started weekend contact with their father. On the same day, Child F tells the school that his brothers keep him awake and in January 2025 their behaviours became increasingly challenging at school and at the foster home and at the foster home and the changed sleep patterns are still noted. That is an entry in the chronology at C-190 dated 21 January 2025.

Child E’s behaviour at school deteriorates and he is given a five-day suspension in January 2025 and I have already noted how the boys left their foster carer from school and went to the father’s in February 2025. The father was asked to sign multiple working together agreements during this period but none of them led to the children’s return and ultimately I was asked to make a recovery order.

The social worker rationale for the increased time at home was as follows: “It was made to alleviate some of their distress at being separated from their father and their sibling with a view to a planned gradual transition back to the father’s care once the outcome of the trial was known”. The increase of the time at home was something both the mother and the father advocated for very forcefully and indeed they wanted more time rather than less with the boys away from foster care and this was raised at every hearing. It is therefore the clear view of every party that it should be tried, this increased time at home, but it seems to coincide with unsettled behaviour. In my view, any future change of circumstances for these boys needs to be very carefully calibrated given the changes that they have been through to date and the difficulties that they had making the transition back home during that testing period.

When I asked the social worker about a road map home, she was clear that the boys needed a decision to be made and for a period of stability. Her view is that them being told they could go home if certain things happened, for example, would not be helpful for them and that was a view shared by the Guardian.

I look at their age, sex and backgrounds and any other characteristics which are relevant. Child C is now 16, Child D turned 15 over the weekend that has just passed, Child E, 13 and Child F, 12. They are part of a bigger sibling group in Country Z. The father gave evidence he has 19 children in total but eight by his second wife, the mother. There are four children in Country Z with her: Child H, a boy, Child I, a boy, Child J, a girl, Child K, a girl, are all in Country Z. In 2023, the children were asked about their siblings that seemed to struggle to count up the number of siblings they had in Country Z and Child F said he was not able to count them. None of the boys are recorded as speaking about their half-siblings and although five of their half-siblings are in the UK, they do not seem to form part of the boys’ life as far as the evidence suggests.

The bond between the boys at the beginning of proceedings was a strong one and Dr Wolfson concluded they have a strong affectionate bond with each other and that their relationship was important with each other and that their sibling relationship plays an important role in their lives. Sadly, there is now no option put forward by any party by which all four brothers could be together and this is deeply difficult. Their experiences and their responses to them have led to a position that their needs cannot all be met together as a sibling group and their relationship with Child F has become increasingly fractured.

Looking at the background and characteristics that are relevant to this family, the independent social worker has heritage from Country Z and qualified in Country Z as a social worker. She sets out the relevance of the children’s backgrounds in Country Z in her assessments. She says, “among other things, that one of the most notable aspects of the culture of Country Z is the use of physical discipline which includes spanking, hitting as a form of punishment. While it might seem harsh or barbaric to some, physical chastisement is an accepted practice in the culture of Country Z and it is often viewed as an effective way to discipline children and maintain parental authority”. She says “it is essential to understand the cultural context within which physical chastisement is practiced in Country Z. In traditional society in the culture of Country Z, respect for authority and elders is highly valued and the children are expected to obey their parents and other authority figures without question. Physical discipline is seen as a means of reinforcing this hierarchical structure and ensuring the children learn to respect and follow rules”.

I bear in mind the children’s rich heritage from Country Z and in fact, their heritage is richer still. The maternal family are of Palestinian origin and now have citizenship from Country Z but they were refugees in Country Z originally. The maternal uncle rightly points out if they lived in Country Z the children would be supported as part of one large family to learn the customs and traditions of their country of origin.

I look at any harm that the children have suffered or are at risk of suffering and I have already dealt with the threshold. I look at the conviction the father has for ABH of Child F and I think it is important to place this against the wider canvas of evidence.

Looking back at the papers disclosed from London Borough of B and their involvement in 2022, it was actually triggered by one of the boys’ adult half-brothers from the father’s first marriage making a referral to social services. I do not know the identity of that brother, it is redacted in the documents before me, but in the referral it is recorded that he tells the Local Authority that the father hits the children and throws things. At the time, it was concluded this referral was malicious and it has not been put to the father in the witness box and this is hearsay. The father gave evidence he is not in touch with any of his five adult children from his first marriage in the UK and it seems that that relationship may have become somewhat estranged.

In the witness box the independent social worker referred to a reference to domestic abuse in her report and clarified that it was abuse that was reported in Country Z and before the courts in Country Z between the mother and the father in which the mother said that the father had hit her. The social worker gave evidence that the mother told her that the father had hit her.

The maternal uncle told the court that his sister had told him that the father had hit her and this was documented in the courts in Country Z.

The mother gave evidence that the father had been beating her for the past 19 years of their marriage. She gave a very graphic and detailed description of the father having fractured her arm, her finger, and an injury to her left eye, to the father stopping her making or attending medical appointments for this injury. She said she honestly could not count the number of times she had been subjected to abuse. She gave spontaneous evidence about how the father was controlling her, did not allow her to see her friends or family or use the phone, and stopped her from getting help when violence occurred. She was clear that the children had been in the house at the time and it would have been damaging for them to see or hear the mother being beaten by their father.

After this evidence was given, I gave the father an adjournment to speak to his counsel before she started her cross-examination. Through the questions put to the mother, counsel said that the father accepted that the parental relationship did have arguments from time to time and at times these became physical, but when the mother was angry she would hold a knife to his neck. The mother did not accept this in skilful cross-examination by Ms More O'Ferrall. The mother seemed to at times minimise the severity of abuse that she said she suffered. She said things improved before he left, and that she had never seen the father hurt the children and that that was a red line.

The father told the court in evidence that it was not true that he had broken the mother’s bones on occasion, and that she had psychological issues that needed to be addressed. He said that the mother put a knife to his throat when the children were outside, but he minimised that event, saying the knife was he not held to the children’s neck.

I look at what the boys say about the father. In his interview with Dr Kala on 21 June 2023, Child F states that his father does not hit his brothers, and that is consistent with what Child D and Child E have said. There is only one entry in the social work records in which Child D suggests he may have been on the receiving end of physical abuse and that is in the social work chronology dated 6 May 2022. It is recorded in the first social work statements that Child D tells a social worker that historically they get hit. Child D said a long time ago in Country Z, when they were jumping off their bunk beds they got into trouble and their father hit them on the palm with the ruler, and Child D said that he was five when that happened. But otherwise Child F reports abuse whereas Child D, Child E and Child C do not.

I look at the risk of harm from Child C. Child C has been to the criminal court and received a conditional discharge for assaulting a police officer and a teacher arising out of the summer 2023 incident. The social worker records from 2021 record at F10 that Child C has physically attacked social workers by punching them to leave the house. Child C has also followed the social worker out of the house, throwing stones, punching and hitting social workers. On this occasion, the father is recorded as telling the social worker he struggles to manage his children’s behaviour, particularly Child C’s.

In 2022 the historic social worker’s records from London Borough of B record that Child C assaulted London Borough of B Council staff. There was an incident with another student in July 2023 which is described by a teacher at Child C’s school in Dr Wolfson’s report. Child C did not start this altercation but he got into a rage and started punching, kicking and spitting. It took three members of staff to restrain him. “He had totally gone”, reports the teacher. The teacher described that when he came in for a meeting with his father he found it very difficult. He could not appreciate what he had done wrong and was only fixated on the other student. The father is unable to help Child C understand what he could have done differently, both on this occasion and also in the July 2023 incident at Child F’s school. Dr Wolfson writes as follows:

“Child C has been involved in two physical altercations at his brother’s school and his own school. He does not appear to show sufficient understanding in the seriousness of these incidents, nor did he show any sense of responsibility for what occurred. In his view, each confrontation was started by somebody else and then escalated by other people. The father fully supports this perspective.”

The school of Child C told the social worker that Child C can be reactive and he needs support to regulate his emotions. This is seen in the incident I have already talked about in February this year when he got into a fight on the way to school. But I have also cited the evidence that he is able to step back at times.

In relation to the father, in addition to the criminal conviction for the assault of Child F he has also been seen to be aggressive on other occasions. For example, the independent social worker spoke to him remotely and concluded:

“The father was very nervous and aggressive. He was not listening to me. He was preventing me from speaking. He kept talking and shouting all the time, not responding to me. He told me the mother went to see a psychiatrist and needed sessions because she could not raise her children.”

At the time when Child D and Child E were spending more time at home, he shouted at the social worker and was abusive to the Guardian. On 5 March 2025, Child D told the social worker it was her own fault that his father had shouted at her and that he was right to do so as she was against his father. The Guardian has reported being on the receiving end of the father’s aggression on at least two occasions. The most significant of these was on 28 October 2024 when she said that:

“The father was shouting and swearing at me, pointing at my face while Child C was present. I tried to end the visit as this wasn’t appropriate. The father continued to shout out of his living room window loudly, swearing and calling me derogatory names.”

She concludes that she was concerned that the father is influencing Child D as there has been a drastic shift in the way he speaks to others. I have already spoke of the incident with a social worker at which the father said that their mother was dying of cancer – that was in front of Child D and Child C – and there is a pattern across the evidence of the father being aggressive to female professionals involved with the family. He got on well with his male parenting assessor and Dr Wolfson but the Guardian, the social worker and the independent social worker are all female and experience him at times as aggressive. It may be a coincidence, but on one analysis of the evidence there is a pattern there, and this has had an impact on the boys. Child D and Child E were exposed to his aggression in 2023 at school and Child C was caught up in it and mirrored it in that occasion which was the trigger to these proceedings.

The Guardian is now worried that Child D’s extreme shift in presentation has been influenced by his father. She says:

“If Child D continues to be disrespectful to adults, particularly women, I worry about the impact this will have on his future. If he continues to be defensive and threatening to others I worry about how he’ll keep himself safe in the community as I do not want him ever to be at risk of harm from others. If he continues to have a negative view of professionals I worry about how this will impact him in accepting help when he is older. I am concerned that until the father addresses the negative impact he is having on Child D’s emotional well-being, the concerns the professionals have, and things won’t change for Child D and may get worse, and the father needs to recognise immediately the impact this will have on Child D now and in the future.”

The social worker gave evidence that the boys need support, boundaries and guidance as they enter this stage of their childhood and that the foster carer was better placed than the father to provide this.

I also, by way of the background, look at the family dynamic in Country Z. The independent social worker in her report notes that physical chastisement is culturally often part of the culture in Country Z and I have already referred to that. She gave evidence in the witness box that the mother beat the children and confirmed this repeatedly in oral evidence. Her written evidence of the mother’s style of discipline is as follows:

“When they do not listen to her, she punishes them, sometimes by hitting them physically or not giving them the allowance the following day, or by not letting them go to the supermarket or play in the park. It was obvious that the relationship between the mother and the children at home is based on threats and controls or orders from her. They have no room to express their opinions or behave freely.”

I look at what Half-Sibling Q, father’s son from his first marriage, tells the independent social worker. She records Half-Sibling Q was physically abused by the father when he was young, he reported which lasted from the age of six until 17 years old. He mentioned in an example saying when he was 17 years old, the father beat him and told him to leave the house. When asked about this, the father did not answer the question directly and was evasive at first and then called the independent social worker corrupt.

Half-Sibling Q also brought reports to the independent social worker that the mother beat him, insulted him and that he used to feel unsafe. The maternal uncle gave evidence that there was an argument between the mother and [redacted] in which he harmed her and she pushed him towards the wall. He said he hit her and she hit him. He gave evidence that the same thing happened with Half-Sibling R, that he too was starting to hit the mother and to harm her.

The mother’s evidence was that she was protecting her younger children during these political altercations because Half-Sibling Q was becoming harmful to them and Half-Sibling Q was jealous of the father taking his younger half-brothers to London. The evidence therefore suggests a dynamic of physical aggression in family life in Country Z.

I look at the boys’ inter-sibling relationships. When I first gave judgment in October 2024 I set out how there were entries in the social work chronologies and the primary evidence from 2022 onwards that the boys could be physically aggressive to each other. This was before the events of June 2023. My first judgment sets out how the foster carer raised concerns about the boys’ level of aggression towards each other and how Child D had held a knife to Child F’s throat very early on when he was in foster care. Looking through the foster carer logs, Child E is seen as domineering and using physical force towards his brothers in 2024. For example, at M9 he is said to be very violent towards his siblings and at M12 described as a “bully”. The foster carers expressed a view that he needs anger management to help him channel his aggression. Sometimes improvements are noted and the foster carers at that time were working very consciously on the dynamic between the boys.

In my view this dynamic between the boys themselves must be placed in the context of the physical aggression to which they have been exposed to between their parents and which was the norm for them as a way of background to the earliest years of their family life.

It is important to recall that Child F, in his video recorded interview, said that Child C punches him and that Child D kicks him. He gives a detailed account. He told the police that his father does not stop them or tell them to stop. This is entirely consistent with what he told Dr Kala on 21 June 2023 at that first medical appointment, that sometimes his brothers hit him as well.

The father’s evidence on this was shifting. In the VRI he says that Child F hits his brothers but he has never seen his brothers hitting Child F. This contradicts what he told the court in October 2024 - that he often had to intervene to stop the boys from fighting each other.

Dr Wolfson was clear in his recommendation that there needs to be a facilitated discussion about inter-sibling violence. In my view the father is poorly placed to help the boys with this because his acceptance of this dynamic is shifting and ambiguous. In most recent foster carer logs Child D is recorded as being physically aggressive to Child E.

Looking at the totality of the evidence and taking a step back, Child F’s assault is not without its context. The father has responded to any allegations of physical abuse, whether made by Child F, his wife or Half-Sibling Q by saying they are lying or fabricating or that the writer of the report is corrupt. Mr McWatters urges caution in relation to any finding of domestic abuse given that it was not pleaded in the threshold, but the reason it is not pleaded in the threshold is because the full extent of it was not unpacked until the mother gave evidence. She did not give evidence in October 2024, but when asked about the reference in the independent social worker’s report to domestic abuse from her husband she clarified it was the father and that there were proceedings in Country Z. Her account has been backed up by her brother.

The mother gave fluent and spontaneous evidence, rich in detail. She gave evidence that in effect undermined her primary case that the boys should be with their father and the father’s evidence that she was lying was unconvincing. I find her evidence compelling and I prefer it to his. I am satisfied that the father has been physically abusive both to the mother and to Child F and the broader picture suggests physical violence was a feature of family life more broadly. Physical violence features in the relationship between the father and the mother. It features in the relationship that the mother has with her stepchildren and the children in her care. It features in the boys as a sibling group in foster care and it is Child C’s way of expressing himself at times.

What is telling is to return to the teacher who witnessed the 2023 event when speaking to Dr Wilson about how the younger children reacted to the outburst. She says Child E was very scared of dad’s behaviour when describing the incident and Child F said: “He is always like that when he has had a drink.” But after the outburst by dad, despite what was going on around them, the children played normally. They were oblivious to what had happened at school that day, as if they were desensitised to it, and I am satisfied, looking at the totality of the evidence, that physical violence has been normalised by this family. I am satisfied by virtue of Section 3 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 that the boys themselves are victims of domestic abuse and that neither parent showed the insight into the impact of domestic abuse on their children.

How do I calibrate the risk of future physical harm? There is, of course, a risk to the boys witnessing physical expressions being used as a response to events around them. The Guardian gave evidence that the way Child D is learning to deal with those he disagrees with is emotionally damaging, saying “the concern is about how you treat others. When you say something he does not like he becomes quite abusive. When the boys are told something they do not like, if it is raised by the father and they do not want to deal with that, there is a risk of physical violence or aggression or conflict and that causes them harm. There is a way of having a positive discussion without resorting to violence and I want them to have long-term positive relationships and have trust in adults and any chance of that occurring will be jeopardised by what I have seen first-hand and my observation of him. All boys need to learn that aggression and violence does not get you what you want and it comes with risks of being drawn into the criminal justice system, just as the father and Child C have been at times”. The calibration of future risk of physical harm is a very delicate one.

I look at how others have calibrated risk. The father’s independent social worker in his assessment in February 2024 writes:

“There is no doubt that the father wishes to move forward and guarantees the future safety if the children are placed in his care, free from any risk of physical violence or neglect. I am confident he has developed a good enough insight to address these issues and the risks of any such incidents reoccurring in my professional opinion are reduced.”

However, although there have been no instances of physical violence reported since then, the father has, as I have looked at in evidence, been aggressive verbally. The probation risk assessment in relation to criminal damage alone was prepared for the criminal courts at the December 2024 hearing, prior to the conviction for ABH which the father more recently received. It puts him at medium risk of serious harm to children and opines that physical and emotional harm are the type of harm envisaged. The pre-sentence report for the assault contains the following:

“From the account the father has provided it is apparent he is not been fully honest about his behaviour. However, that does not indicate he poses a greater risk and could be a sign of feeling shame, stigma, or having knowledge that the behaviour is wrong. The court will be aware of how difficult it is to challenge offending behaviour when one part of the behaviour is denied. The motivation for the offence may have been to attempt to control and enforce discipline and it appears Child F was displaying behavioural challenges at the time. It is possible that the father resorted to physical discipline as a means of managing his child’s behaviour and establishing a sense of authority within the household. His behaviour demonstrates resorting to extreme measures when parenting, a poor ability to consider the overall needs of his children and placing them at risk of harm. The offence raises concerns surrounding his parenting skills, safeguarding and the risks he poses to children under his care.”

That pre-sentence report concludes he remains at medium risk of serious harm to children. It is important to note that the December pre-sentence report was produced after the father had done his parenting course at which the social worker told the court he had engaged well and had helpful conversations around physical violence.

In the witness box, the father did not accept the conviction and said he found himself innocent. He dismissed the mother’s allegations of domestic abuse, saying: “Where’s the police or medical evidence?” He said he had not discussed with her what she had said in the witness box and answered her evidence with silence. He minimised the criminal damage conviction for which he pleaded guilty, saying he was influenced by panic, not drink, when the criminal judge in his sentencing remarks found otherwise.

The Guardian gave evidence that in her view the boys remained at risk of physical harm, despite being older. Mr McWatters described her evidence as deficient but I think the calibration of risk is very difficult in this case. The social worker was unable in the witness box to quantify the risk to the boys that they would be physically hurt if they went home, but she was clear too that there was some risk.

In my view, in order to mitigate the risk of physical harm, several factors are relevant:

The risk is different for Child C. I do not accept there is no risk to him at all – I have evidence from his mother and his older half-brother that the father assaulted them at an age older than the one Child C currently is – but the factors which mitigate risk for Child C are as follows:

There is a risk that even if the father is not physically aggressive he has been verbally aggressive and that poses a risk to the boys, either if they are on the receiving end of verbal aggression or learn that this is the way to resolve conflict.

I continue with my consideration of harm. I look at Child F and there is a family narrative shared by his older brothers and father that Child F is lying. A number of theories have been put forward by the family to explain what Child F said. To the independent social worker the father says Child F has autism and “went beyond reality” when he was caught smoking. Later he tells the independent social worker that Child F had some bad influence from children in the neighbourhood and has ADHD. In the VRI he attributes it again to the bad influence of the neighbourhood children. In his statement dated 24 March 2024 he says Child F is lying for attention. After a conversation with father the social worker is told that Child F was smoking cannabis before he made the allegation. There has never been any evidence involving cannabis that I have been able to see.

There is a suggestion in the mother’s statement on 17 April 2024 that Child F has said he is not wanting to go back to the father and it is not a true reflection of his wishes. She says he has been influenced by the things he has perceived since being in foster care. This is strikingly similar to what Child C seemed to be suggesting to me when we met on 31 July 2025. Child E has described Child F to the social worker as a “gold digger” who invented the allegations about the father as he had heard you get more money in foster care.

Ms Monteith’s statement of November 2023 says that in his ABE Child F shared that his brothers were blaming him for being in foster care and it would appear that the family narrative at present is that Child F has invented the allegations and is not being truthful.

During a visit to Child C on 8 January 2024 Child C told the social worker that his father was a good parent and Child F was lying because he wants attention. On 20 November 2023 Child E states in the video on the body-worn camera footage that his brother is lying because he does not like the father.

The foster carer logs in summer 2024 note that Child F is becoming ostracised by his brothers. When Child E and Child D spend more with their father after the October hearing there is a deterioration in their relationship with Child F. Child E has remained adamant it is Child F’s fault he is in foster care, telling the social worker on 11 November 2024 that Child F was injured whilst play-fighting with friends and lied to teachers about being hit by the father. The social worker writes:

“The foster carers have raised concern as to the recent deterioration in the sibling relationship, particularly the dynamic between Child D and Child F. They describe Child F as being subject to chastisement from his brothers in the home. On 13 November ‘24 the foster carers sent an email which details fights breaking out and an observation that Child F seems to prefer staying in close proximity to his carers rather than being on his own.”

The taxi company responsible for transport to and from school raised similar concerns. In the email dated 13 November 2024 the foster carer states she received a call from the taxi driver who told her that Child D was getting at Child F in the car and he moved Child F to the front for his safety. The driver described both Child D and Child E as verbally abusing Child F, saying that it is Child F’s fault they are not living with the father. The taxi driver is of the view that the behaviour has escalated since Child D and Child E have been spending more time with the father.

On 12 November 2024 the contact team sent an email advising Child F was refusing to go into the contact room to spend time with the father and his brothers but would not talk about the reason for this. During a school visit on 19 November 2024 Child F explained to the social workers that his brothers had been playing a game and that Child E was cheating which made him angry. He then asked the social worker whether he had to go to contact and stated he did not want to attend anymore. When asked to give reasons he simply said: “I just don’t want to.”

On 21 November 2024 Child F was required to attend the Crown Court to be cross-examined. Child F was taken to the court a day ahead of his cross-examination on the 20^th in order to familiarise himself with the environment and have the opportunity to ask questions. Child F presented as quiet and nervous and expressed a reluctance to speak to the judge and barristers. He enquired about whether his father and brothers would find out what he says. It was explained to him his father would know but his evidence cannot be shared with Child D and Child E. The following morning the social worker was collecting Child F from school to bring him to court and he said words to the effect of:

“Yesterday you said nobody is allowed to tell my brothers about this but last night they came and told me not to say anything.”

He presented as distressed and angry.

This incident was explored with a taxi company to establish how Child D and Child E became aware that Child F was answering questions at court. The driver shared that Child D and Child E were collected from school on the 20^th without Child F and enquired as to his whereabouts. The driver explained that Child F had an appointment, which prompted Child D and Child E to speculate he was attending court. Later that evening when Child D and Child E were being driven home from the contact centre they discussed this further, saying words to the effect of: “We will know what he says tomorrow.” After Child F’s cross-examination on 21 November 2024 he was returned to the foster placement by the social worker and was able to debrief with the foster carers, and was reassured that although his brothers were aware he attended court his evidence will remain private and the foster carers will support him with any conflict this may bring.

Child D and Child E returned to the placement shortly afterwards and asked Child F what he said to the judge. Child F left the room while Child E repeated the questions to the social worker and foster carers. It was explained to Child E that Child F is not allowed to talk about this and the conversation was private. The foster carers sent a message to the social worker sometime later saying there had been fighting, with Child E trying to hit Child F and throw water on him, which had brought Child F to tears. The foster carers did not leave the children alone and remained on hand to de-escalate the conflict.

From 26 November 2024 Child F refused to go to contact to see his father and refused to speak to his mother on that date. He refused to remain in the room with his brothers following the video call and for the duration of the contact session was with the staff in the office and says he does not want to attend contact anymore.

When the boys were at their father’s in March 2025, Child D and Child E said they should be able to stay with their father and it is Child F’s fault so only Child F should be in foster care. Child F himself seems very aware that his brothers blame him for being in foster care, telling the social worker that they always stick up for their father.

A great deal of emphasis has been placed on the children’s wishes and feelings and views during this case by the father and indeed the mother, however that has not extended at any time to Child F and in my view he has not been listened to and has become a scapegoat for the family. This is obviously emotionally harmful for Child F but is actually emotionally harmful for all the boys because one of them has been ostracised for saying what his experience and his views are.

I have quoted in some detail about Child F’s lived experience so that the father and mother may have some insight as to why he has said he does not wish to see them. It is regrettable that the children and families work did not happen as I told it would in October. The team decided it could not take place during proceedings and prior to the trial. I understand their reasoning but it means that the emotionally harmful dynamic between Child F and the rest of the family has seemed to be prevalent and it seems to me very clear that Child F feels that nobody in the family takes what he says as true and so he has made his own decision to distance himself from them.

I look at the harm caused to the children by leaving Country Z and being separated from their mothers and siblings. This move was not planned well enough. The maternal uncle was under the impression that the father was coming to the UK temporarily and did not expect them to stay in the UK. He gave evidence that the whole family had a close relationship with the boys before they left and that it has been upsetting for their mother and the broader family not to see them. It has been upsetting for the boys too and a great emotional loss.

Dr Wilson looked at the impact of the children if some were placed in the UK and some were placed in Country Z in his addendum and he concluded it would have a negative impact on the four boys if they were separated from one another and he said that the likely impact on the children if some were in Country Z and some were in the UK would depend on a number of practical and psychological factors. I will now go through those factors and apply them to the evidence before me.

There is a real risk of harm that goes with the prospect of going to Country Z and being separated from the father and each other by being in different countries and the risk of alienation from each other and disorientation.

I look at the harm that the boys have suffered and are likely to suffer in foster care and throughout these proceedings because they have taken so long. Ms More O’Farrell skilfully took the social worker through all the twists and turns of the litigation history and the changes in the Local Authority position. The social worker accepted that the boys would have been told at various stages the plan would be to go home to their father. The plan was subsequently delayed or ultimately changed and the social worker accepted the shifting position caused the children emotional harm. She accepted it would have been hard for the children to understand why their father could only care for them at the weekend and not all the time, although she tried hard to explain it to them. I recall writing a letter to each of the three oldest boys explaining why but without making long-term promises.

The social worker did not accept in cross-examination this was an unfair position to put the children in. Clearly in my view she was doing her best to balance all the factors in this case and make the best decision she could for the children. She was trying her best with the information she had at the time. This is a social worker who is sensitive, receptive and far from dogmatic and who visited the family after work hours on that first night home to see how they were.

The Guardian also accepted that the boys had suffered emotional harm during these proceedings. It is very easy to look back over a long set of proceedings with hindsight and suggest that things could have been done differently and criticise the Local Authority for being reactive.

It is important to remember too the forceful and repeated submissions made on behalf of the parents throughout these proceedings that the father’s time with the boys should be increased if they could not return home completely. There was therefore a reasonable expectation that the parents would both work with the Local Authority to help to manage this period of uncertainty and to make the transition successful and to help explain to the boys what was happening. However, the parents have not always assisted the boys in dealing with the uncertainty, as was apparent from my previous analysis of the testing period.

The risk calibration by the social worker and the Guardian in my view has been careful in this case. They have been criticised for allowing the children to go back for weekends and questioned on how this did not constitute a welfare risk when they maintained at the final hearing there was a risk of physical harm. However, in my view, it was different to the full return of the children to the father’s care because at the time the boys had the foster carers they trusted, they had their schools, they had social work visits, they had a Guardian who visits and carefully calibrates how they are responding to the situation. Each of the parties had their legal representatives to raise any concerns through and the boys were given a chance to feed back how it was going to be and how any injuries on them would have been spotted very quickly.

However, it is clear that the well-intentioned approach of the Local Authority and their change of plans has caused the boys harm in and of itself. There have also been complaints made about their treatment in foster care. I have seen that there has been no further action on these by the police. I have watched the body-worn camera footage and I have read everything in the bundle about the LADO investigation and the questioning of the children. I re-read that material in preparing this judgment and what the boys said was taken seriously and listened to and the most serious allegations made have not been substantiated.

It is hard to itemise the different harms the boys have suffered given that they have suffered harm from being separated from their mother in Country Z, suffered harm due to housing instability and uncertainty in the UK. As the father tells Dr Wolfson himself: “There have been lots of traumas with our homelessness.” I have also found that the father’s drawn the boys into the proceedings and discussed with them more than he should have done. That, at times, has been emotionally harmful too. But collectively the boys’ experience in foster care and the uncertainty around proceedings I accept will have also caused them harm.

I look at how capable the parents are of meeting their needs. The mother’s wishes and feelings have changed through proceedings. In the first statement she says, in 2023: “All the children should come to Country Z so we can be a family together.” Her second of April 2024: “I am not seeking the placement of Child C, Child D, Child E and Child F in Country Z” she says, although she disputes the parenting assessor’s view. In the third statement the wish is for all the children to be placed with their father at home. Prior to the hearing on 20 June 2025 she had given instructions that if the children were not placed with the father it was no longer her position she wished for them to be placed in Country Z. That is set out in her pre-trial review position statement of 20 June 2025. Her fourth statement on 20 June 2025 is that the children are all to be placed at home with their father “but if the father is not seeking Child F’s return to his care then I ask that Child F is with me and with my family in Country Z. If Child F were to come to Country Z I would have the support of my family.” She sets out in her statement how Child D and Child E do not wish to have contact with her “but if they could not be placed with their father”, she says: “I would wish for them to be placed with me in Country Z.”

The nature of her relationship with the boys, as seen by Dr Wolfson, is that they have a secure attachment with her prior to separation but their lengthy time apart, coupled with challenging home circumstances, have weakened the strength of their relationship with her and the time in the UK has undermined the quality of the children’s relationship with their mother and none of them sadly wish to speak to her. That must be heartbreaking for her and I am glad that she has written to them since the August hearing. In that way, even if they cannot communicate with her, she has made it clear that they are loved and not forgotten.

I look at her response to the allegations by Child F. In her first discussion with a social worker in 2023 she said it was quite impossible for her to believe the father is aggressive to them. She does not accept it in her conversation with Dr Wolfson. Even in the witness box she was adamant she had never seen the father hurt the children. When asked repeatedly if she had believed Child F she would not answer the question directly.

In her parenting assessment of December 2023 she shows no greater insight. The parenting assessment looks with care at her family in Country Z and speaks not only to her family but the father’s ’s first wife, the head teacher at her children’s school, her neighbour, her parents, her siblings, and Half-Sibling Q and Half-Sibling R from the father’s first marriage. It details her health: she has diabetes, an underactive thyroid, IBS and anaemia. It details her finances: she is reliant on the father sending his benefits money from the UK. She received some money from the Ministry of Social Development and a local charity but her income does not meet her outgoings. She says:

“My financial circumstances are difficult. Since two years ago the father has not sent any amount of money as an allowance except for the house rent.”

She tells the social worker the father used to continuously travel to the UK and leave her behind without money to spend on herself and the children, even money for basic needs and housing expenditure. It is clear, says the independent social worker, that she is struggling to care for the children she has with her in Country Z and she recommends that the mother does a bespoke programme tailored to address the deficiencies in her parenting skills to make changes for the children in her care. She says she would require long-term stable accommodation and financial support to adequately care for the children.

In relation to the relationship between the mother and the father, the independent social worker says the mother did not object when the father decided to take the children to the UK. She observed in the virtual interview the father telling the mother she was mentally ill and the mother started to cry and say over and over again: “I want my children back.” The assessor found the mother passive and unable to properly evaluate and assess important matters in her life. This chimes with what the maternal uncle told the independent social worker: “she believes whatever the father tells her without thinking whether it is right or wrong”. This is also consistent with what the second maternal uncle, her brother, told the independent social worker. It is already mentioned how more detail came out in the witness box that the parents’ relationship was characterised by domestic abuse and the maternal uncle in the witness box described the parents’ relationship now as a very bad relationship and referred to a maintenance claim pending against the father in Country Z. Despite this, both parents maintained that they were in a relationship and the mother supported the father caring for the children, but the interaction between the parents is relevant as to whether the children are exposed to a dysfunctional family dynamic whether they are placed with either parent.

The mother has an understanding of the concerns that caused the Local Authority to become involved in the family’s life, but she does not accept them and wants to care for the children herself without the Local Authority’s intervention, writes the independent social worker, even though, in the assessor’s view, she does not have the capacity to do so. The assessor looks at her ability to promote education and says from 2021 to 2023 it is evident that the mother contributed to depriving Half-Sibling R, Half-Sibling S and Child H from going to school, meaning they were deprived of their right to education.

The assessor speaks to the sons of the father’s first wife and Half-Sibling Q and Half-Sibling R both expressed unhappiness living with the mother in Country Z and Half-Sibling R claims that the father prevented him having his contact with his mother in the UK and Half-Sibling R says he last saw her when he was three to four years old. The evidence from the sons of the father’s first wife is hearsay but it is a reflection of the family dynamic and suggestive that they are unable to collectively prioritise the needs of the children in their care.

The mother’s relationship with the rest of her family is strained. This is important because the maternal uncle says he would support her if the boys were in her care but he also says she does not know how to manage her household affairs. Every time he and his siblings have to help her financially and get rid of accumulated arrears she does not accept the situation before it is too late and then she will take the money and not the advice. She does not want solutions, he concludes, only money. The independent social worker spoke to the mother for the assessment and at that time her brothers were not in touch with her. Now they are on better terms, however it is a weakness in the family plan that maternal family did not safeguard the children in the mother’s care before the independent social worker was involved.

The independent social worker was sufficiently worried about the mother’s care of the children in Country Z she made a referral to social services in Country Z and was told they were already following the family.

I look at whether the maternal uncle is able to care for the children. He sets out in his statement he would be prepared to give the children a home and can meet the practicalities of housing for them and caring for them. The independent social worker paints the picture of him being pivotal to the family and someone who is respected and to whom the mother can turn. He has made practical enquiries, suggesting that mother takes a flat occupied by the third maternal uncle in the same block with the extended family. The independent social worker took the view that he understood the basic needs of the children and the importance of keeping them safe, not using physical chastisement and protecting them from abuse. He said that this was a family of emotional warmth and educational stimulation.

The maternal uncle has three children of his own, the oldest I think will be around nine, and says to the assessor:

“I want them to live with us but I have never actually seen them or spoken to them.”

There seems to be very little thought given to how the needs of three girls aged four, eight and nine might be balanced with the needs of three teenage boys who spent the last five years in a very different culture to Country Z. Both the maternal uncle and his wife work so it is unclear to me how they would juggle their work commitments and the care of six children, three of whom have quite complex emotional needs.

The uncle would need to be able to rebuild a relationship with the boys. These boys have no existing relationship with the maternal uncle, his wife or children. I do not doubt that they are genuine in the offer of the home that they make, but they have not been in touch with these boys throughout their time in the UK and the last time they saw them online or in person was before they came to the UK in 2020. The boys did not wish to be in touch with their uncle when, at my instigation, the social worker enquired with them about this over the summer.

These three teenage boys have a fractured and complex relationship and have suffered emotional harm through these proceedings and their experience in the UK and in my view the maternal uncle and the independent social worker both underestimate the emotional needs of these boys. The thrust of both of their evidence is: if the boys were in Country Z they would have support of the wider maternal family and that would compensate for the harm they have suffered.

However I look also at the relationship between the family in Country Z and the father and how able they are to promote the relationship between the children and their father. The independent social worker speaks to the maternal grandfather who says he believed the father is “a dishonest man who does not have a job and is not a responsible person”. He mentioned that from the time the father married the mother he could not remember if he had a job and his daughter has always been asking for financial support. He goes on to say the father is a “liar and hypocrite and plays with the mother’s mind”. In father’s 2024 March statement he says his relationship with his in-laws has deteriorated in these proceedings “as my in-laws told lies and problems about myself.” The father has put in writing that he has concerns about the family members being assessed from the mother’s side although he supported at the time the mother’s application to give evidence together with the maternal uncle from Country Z.

The third maternal uncle suggested his sister should separate from the father and thinks that her life is unstable. He says he has lost contact with the boys because the father stopped them communicating with him and the rest of the mother family. That is consistent with what the maternal uncle told the independent social worker. He too has not seen or heard from the boys since they left for the UK.

The third maternal uncle says there is no communication between the third maternal uncle, the father and the children since they left for life in the UK and the maternal uncle said he last hear from the father in June 2024 but he was complaining about the mother and speaking ill of her; he was causing problems and using offensive language. The conflict between the father, the second maternal uncle and the third maternal uncle made these two uncles change their minds about offering the boys a home and withdraw from assessment and in the witness box the maternal uncle was highly critical of the father for not providing materially or indeed emotionally.

These boys idolise their father. They have been unable to accept the fact of his conviction and it seems that placing them within the broader maternal family, who are highly critical of him, would put them in a complex emotional position. Although the maternal uncle gave evidence his aim was not to distort the children’s image of their father in their eyes but to raise them in the best possible way, he repeatedly drew the contrast between the financial provision he had made for the father’s children and the father’s failure to provide.

This is an extended family that are also highly critical of the mother. They appear to have tried to support her and all gained the impression she has made unwise decisions and rejected their advice. The third maternal uncle says:

“We won’t abandon our sister but she has disappointed us. The mother is living under the illusions and the dreams of life in Britain and the family knows the father is only going to care for himself.”

Placing any of the children with the maternal family would make it hard for them to maintain their relationship with their father.

There are also not clear cut lines of accountability. The maternal uncle says the children would live with him with the mother in the same household, but that there was a risk here that they would drift back to the mother’s care and the maternal uncle and the broader family have not picked up the poor parenting that the assessor did in her assessment. He also, the maternal uncle, seemed to minimise the seriousness of the mother’s physical altercation with Half-Sibling Q, saying he was her stepchild. On the one hand he desires to raise the children the right way but on the other hand it was not clear that he would be able to work with the mother to keep them safe with the children all in the same building.

I look at the father’s ability to meet the children’s needs. I remind myself of the hair strand test at the beginning of these proceedings. In fact it was a nail sample that suggested excessive consumption of alcohol over the period tested. When Child E spoke to Dr Wilson he said that he had last seen his father drunk a month ago or a couple of weeks ago. Child E and Child F are recorded as telling the school their father always gets like this when he is angry in the June 2023 incident. Child F is clear on the VRI that he gives evidence of his father drinking and the Crown Court judge sentenced on the basis that the criminal damage was committed in drink. The father continued to deny that in the witness box here.

The most recent toxicology testing from August and September this year does not suggest chronic excessive alcohol use and the father is clearly to be commended for this, but in the witness box, he was pedantic when asked if he had an issue with alcohol and it took several attempts for him to answer the question by saying he does not let it control him. He minimised the drinking evidence from 2023 when it was set out to him and he took a similar approach to the issue of smoking, telling the court in his written evidence that he was a smoker but in his oral evidence that he stopped months ago. So whilst it is admirable he stops drinking, there is a risk of relapse when a father minimises or denies the usage which has been found historically.

He has been offered support. He has been offered the Stop Parenting Program which he has completed, he has done some of the Triple P Program, and the independent social worker report, which I have reread for the purpose of this final hearing, is positive and has not been challenged. Child C has done well in his care. He is fiercely loyal to his father who has been able to meet most of his needs. With the assistance of social services Child C was given an EHCP plan and a language and speech assessment and was doing well at school and it is to his particular credit that Child C is better able to control his emotions at times than before. He is secure in the love of his father and the father must be given full credit for his role in this.

I look at the housing situation. Looking through the social work chronology, housing instability has been a recurrent theme of these proceedings. The mother’s evidence was that the father had financial difficulty in Country Z and a large amount of debt. The father accepted in evidence that he was in debt in Country Z and it seems that the move here was done with very little planning. In oral evidence the father said he had arranged for a clergyman to provide him with accommodation but when he arrived in the UK that did not transpire.

The first social work entries in January 2020 say that the father arrived from Country Z with the children in an unplanned way. After disembarking from the plane they made their way to a London Borough as this was the borough they had previously been placed in by another London borough. The London borough they went to said they had no housing responsibility for the family as they stated, the family had a home available to them in Country Z. Social care supported the family to find housing. The father accepted in evidence that he came to the UK without secure accommodation and that may have been destabilising for the children. Because he had left the UK to go back to Country Z he was treated as intentionally homeless on returns to the UK, he said in evidence.

In 2021 there were concerns that the family were into rehousing and the father had received an eviction notice. In December that year they were rehoused. In June 2022 there was a move of a house to East London. In September 2022, there was a move from London Borough of B to London Borough of A. In June 2025 the father was evicted from his private rental property because the landlord wanted to sell. The father accepted, however, there were some rent arrears. He moved into a hotel and then I think into a property that was too small for all the boys and now recently into a property that is big enough.

I look at home conditions. These are clearly set out in the threshold document but when the father had the children in his care there was still no improvement noted. In March 2025, when trying to persuade the boys to return, the duty social worker observed empty food packets, clothes and food debris on the floor. The allocated social worker visited frequently when trying to get the boys back to foster care and she too noticed cigarettes, smoke, spoiled food, spillages and food debris. Child E complained his dad did not have any antiseptic and plasters to treat minor grazes when he fell off his bike and the father was offered help to declutter and clean in March 2025, but did not get back to the social worker about this.

I look at the father’s ability to work with others. He very clearly told me in October 2024 that he was willing to work with the social workers and at that time the social worker gave him credit for his clean house and the changes he had made. She gave evidence that he was willing to work with her and indeed they seemed to have a good working relationship. He said in the witness box:

“I feel I can work with the social worker. I would agree for visits and I would be able to ask for help.”

In my 2024 judgment I made it clear that in order for the father to be able to meet the children’s needs he had to be able to work with others to do so. There was a working together agreement that set out the expectation of a clean and tidy environment and the need to work with others during the increased time the boys spent there. The indicators were, in the evidence prior to October 2024, however, that the father does not always find it easy to work with others. Of course, the incident of 19 June 2023 is a prime example of this but also the contact notes record that the father can be dismissive of advice from supervisors and that did not help get the boys able to leave contact on time. This is consistent with what Dr Wolfson said, that the father’s rejection of concerns about his parenting skills, without giving them serious consideration, suggests he will not reflect on his parenting skills and will resist change on how he functions as a parent.

However, given the positive independent social worker report, the placement of the boys with him was tested over the autumn and spring periods. However, although the father committed to working with the Local Authority he was not able to implement the working together agreements and when the boys refused to return to foster care he said: “What can I do if they refuse?”

Even accepting it would have been very hard for him to encourage the boys to return to foster care if they did not want to, he was not able to comply with other bits of the written agreements like contacting the social worker or the carer if the boys came to his house after school. The social worker found it hard to get hold of him. On an occasion he did not answer his phone or it was switched off.

A major barrier to him being able to work effectively with others is his ability to accept that he may be personally responsible for anything that is occurred. All blame is located externally in his oral evidence. He did not accept my threshold findings about neglect last year. He did not accept the mother and Child F’s report of him being violent or indeed [redacted] ’s report to the independent social worker. He minimised the June 2023 evidence even though he pleaded guilty to the criminal damage evidence. He viewed himself as oppressed and showed no insight and very little capacity for change. The Guardian’s evidence was that trying to work with a parent who blames everyone else is very difficult and he has responded aggressively to both the social worker and the Guardian and that has undermined his ability to work effectively with those who have been trying to support him.

He has not always been open and honest. The independent social worker in Country Z says that the father is facing court proceedings in Country Z based on financial checks and that is why he is not able to return. That was not something the father disclosed to the social worker. Neither had he or the mother told the court or the social worker that there had been proved proceedings about domestic abuse in Country Z. This only came out when Mr Marks asked the independent social worker about a reference in her report. This means that the unification plan was endorsed by the court with the support of the Local Authority and the Guardian on the basis of incomplete information which both of the parents knew and we did not.

He has also given information which is inaccurate, like his reference to the mother dying of cancer when she told me she had been given the all-clear. He told the social worker and the expert, and it is detailed in the earliest social work statement and Dr Mitas’ report that he had a heart attack in 2022. His GP letter actually shows non-cardiac chest pain. And he has a tendency to speak in an exaggerated manner which means that you cannot take everything he says completely at face value. I have already referred to the use of “attempted murder” and “rape” to describe what his boys reported about foster care. I know that some of this heightened language may be explained by his stress and the fact that he loves his boys and wants them home, but he has not been full and accurate when sharing information.

I look at his health needs and he told Dr Wolfson that he had a referral to adult services because he had personal care needs but the social worker said the difficulty is he tries to minimise everything so he is not saying that he needs help: “I suggest something to him and he says he does not need it.” The father has often presented tired in the written evidence before him and there is a pattern in the evidence of him oversleeping. Throughout these proceedings his attendance at court has become later and later and the reason given on more than one occasion was oversleeping. The GP letter received in September 2025 sets out a rheumatology referral made in July 2023 because the father reported then to the medics he felt tired all the time. The contact notes record him telling the boys he is tired and on one occasion in August 2023 he comes over as faint.

During the social worker’s involvement in London Borough of B as far back as 2021 he tells the social workers that he has mobility issues and struggles physically with basic tasks like cleaning, cooking, however he reports he is doing his best.

The social work evidence when she comes to check on the family that first evening the boys are there for an overnight stay is that very early in the evening he is asleep. This is detailed in my first judgment together with the inability of Child C’s school to get hold of him. This pattern continued when Child E and Child D were in their father’s care when the social workers struggled to get hold of him.

I made it clear in my 2024 judgment there is no stigma attached to a parent whose health needs mean that they need support. I said the father should not be criticised or judged if his physical or mental health makes life more challenging but he should be supported. His evidence is that adult social services say they do not meet the threshold for their support but that does not mean he is not impacted by his health conditions. He is in receipt of PIP which is calculated on the basis of descriptors related to the impact that health has on everyday life.

He told the social worker in August that he could not attend contact as that was not something he could do at present. It was clarified in court that that was because of his mobility but in the witness box in October he told the court he had no trouble with his mobility but later in the evidence said he needed a taxi due to his lower back and knee issues. It seems to me he has minimised his difficulties in the witness box for understandable reasons but that overall his health is poor and he has not been proactive seeking help for it at times.

His diagnoses are of depression since 1996, extreme anxiety, paranoia, panic attacks, migraine, mild ethrocytosis which his GP states is linked to being tired all the time, diabetes, lower back pain, knee pain, elbow pain, asthma, obesity and neurological problems. In the witness box however he said his health was very good but that does not sit easily with his GP letter or indeed the minor stroke he had in August this year. He has also struggled to attend appointments with the GP, with a number of DNAs recorded that suggest his health needs are not being prioritised.

I look at the father’s ability to meet the children’s needs in contact and when the children were returned to the foster carer as a result of a recovery order the social work evidence is that they retained the slot at the contact centre and told the father it was available. The social worker gave evidence the father did not agree contact should be in the contact centre and wanted it at home. The social worker gave evidence she told the father about the contact in a phone conversation but also by email. She made allowance for him, explaining he had car trouble, but she expressed concern from the child’s perspective he was not prioritised seeing them and that was worrying.

The father told the social worker on 20 August 2025, as I have said, that attending contact was not something he could do at present. As a result of that, at the September hearing I asked the Local Authority to consider funding a taxi. I was told by Mr Marks that they agreed to do so. The father’s evidence was that:

“The social worker told me about the taxi but I hear very little from them. It’s been completely cut off.”

The father is an intelligent and charismatic man and he has a phone and he is well able to raise his views. I find it baffling that he did not repeatedly call the social worker until he got his taxi. If he raised it in correspondence with his solicitor I have not been made aware of this.

The foster carer logs and the contact notes make it clear that when the parents cannot or do not attend contact, that upsets the children and there is a reference at M16 for example that Child E’s behaviour gets worse when the parents did not turn up. The father says of Child D “he is in the worst position he has ever been in psychologically, he needs to be returned to me” and yet he has not done all within his power to see the boys regularly face to face and I am concerned because the father cannot see the way in which his inability to get to contact impacts the boys. It would suggest an inability to meet their individual emotional needs unless it is on his own terms and there is some evidence (which I have already referred to in the foster carer logs) that lead them to suspect he may be meeting the children in an unrestricted way or indeed speaking to them on the phone.

I look at the father’s support network and he is an isolated figure in the UK. Five of his adult children are here with his first wife but he does not appear to see them, so when looking at what support he could be offered, it comes primarily from the Local Authority. I see what they have proposed with floating support workers, but these measures will only be as effective as father is able to accept them and at times he is been defensive when challenged and not answering the phone to professionals. It suggests to me that he would find it hard to accept this support. The Guardian’s evidence was there is no realistic package of support that would allow the boys to return to his care.

So looking at his ability to meet their needs in the round. He is warm and affectionate and he clearly loves his boys. He prizes education and thinks that very important. But there have been long-standing concerns about his ability to meet the totality of his children’s needs consistently, dating back to London Borough of B in 2021, where the concerns raised are strikingly similar to those seen in the tested period: difficulty making sure that the boys have a healthy sleep routine and regular school attendance, for example, and the father becomes aggressive when stressed. He seemed to accept this to an extent in evidence. This often takes place in front of the boys and third parties. His ability to meet the children’s needs, and accept help in doing so, is inconsistent.

I take a step back now and look at all realistic options for these boys.

The only realistic option for Child C is to be with his father. That is not risk-free, because the father has a conviction for assaulting Child F and pleaded guilty to criminal damage. Child C went to the criminal court as a result of being out of the father’s control in the June 2023 incident. But the risk of emotional harm to Child C in being removed from his father outweighs the risk of harm from him being in his father’s care. Everyone agrees that Child C should be with his father under a 12-month supervision order. But it is not risk-free so I balance the factors to satisfy myself that this is the best for him.

In favour of being with his father, he loves his father. His cognitive needs mean he would struggle more than the other boys to understand if he could not be in his father’s care. His age means that any removal from his father’s care would be short-lived. His father has been able to meet most of his needs whilst in his care. They are close emotionally.

Child C has never said he has been physically abused by his father. He is older and able to cook for himself and have a degree of independence his younger brothers cannot. He is over six foot now and the father is relatively frail so he is physically much stronger than the father, which is a perfective factor against physical abuse. The Local Authority say that they will help with independent living skills by sending a floating support worker.

Against this, the risk of physical harm still exists. The father has not made child-focused decisions or helped Child C to make wise choices, for example, coming to court every time he was with the father. That meant he missed school and even during exam season missed those important dates. Child C received his criminal conditional discharge from the assault of the police staff and the school staff in the dad’s presence, modelling the father’s reaction by becoming heated to the events of 19 June 2023. He is not in college and there is no clear plan for his work or education. There is a risk of neglect from poor home conditions.

Mr McWatters submits Child C is not suffering emotional harm in the father’s care, but that is not entirely accurate. Emotionally, the father cannot help Child C repair the relationship with Child F and Child F will no doubt continue to be blamed for everything unless something shifts in the father’s approach.

Child C adopts his father’s narrative without question and so will not receive a balanced narrative about what Child F said or what professionals are saying or doing. It is doubtful that Child C and the father will be able to work with a floating support worker coming in and helping them and Child C idolises his father so if the father is aggressive to professionals, Child C might model this. I conclude that the realistic and necessary and proportional option nevertheless, for Child C, is a 12-month supervision order in his father’s care.

For Child D and Child E, if they go back to their father it is clear their father loves them. They would be with Child C. Their heritage from Country Z would be promoted. They would be able to phone their mother whenever they liked without a supervisor or a translator. It would accord with Child D, Child E’s and Child C’s expressed and consistent wishes and feelings. He has been seen to have an affectionate, warm relationship with his boys. They would not have corporate parents in their lives with all the uncertainty and instability that being in care involves.

Support could be provided through a supervision order. Child C has done relatively well in his father’s care with the support that a supervision order has given him in the interim. The older boys are clear that the father is not violent to them and they are able, to an extent, to get out of the way and defend themselves. There could be a package of family support, including boundary setting for them, home routines, setting a range of independent living skills by modelling, sending a floating support worker in. There could be financial support for the family, including making sure they have got the benefits that they are entitled to. There could be a further referral to adult services. The Local Authority could help the father with any further housing needs he has and the school could also provide mentors and support workers and also, of course, the father has stopped drinking.

Against this, I weigh the disadvantages. The father has been unable to work with others consistently and calmly. Although he says he welcomes support on the ground he has only been able to accept it on his own terms and has often been aggressive. He has been unable to put into practice, between October 2024 and now, that co-working relationship needed with social services to underpin the boys’ increased time with him. He has not been open and honest or shared information accurately. He has sought to influence the boys’ views and shared information inappropriately during these proceedings and exposed them to conflict. They would not be, of course, with their full sibling group in Country Z.

Although he is done well to an extent in caring for Child C, Child C has also been referred to the young carers’ support and took on responsibility for walking his brothers to school, waking them up and cooking. The return of Child D and Child E puts strain on the father’s ability to care and may inadvertently give more responsibility to Child C to look after his younger brothers.

Mr McWatters submits that the father has done well for caring for Child C and shown that he can do it, but in my view caring for three boys is more difficult than caring for one more independent teenager. Child C does not disagree with the father and aligns himself with the father with everything he says. The other children are less likely to do so. The evidence that father has been violent to adults means that age alone is not a protective factor for the boys. We have a conviction for ABH which the father does not accept and Child F has become a figure of blame and would remain so unless there is a shift in the family narrative.

The father shows no real level of acceptance or insight into the threshold findings or his own behaviour thereafter. There has been no increase of his acceptance and understanding of the concerns, even with the period of time and despite years of proceedings. He simply does not accept the boys experienced harm in his care. He has not been able to put the boys before himself and get to contact since the recovery order. He has very little glimmer of understanding of Child F’s lived experience. With this stance, therapeutic work for the boys in their father’s care is unlikely to be received in a positive or productive way. He does not accept the scale of domestic abuse alleged by his wife and that relationship remains dysfunctional.

The threshold findings and recent observations suggest the boys would be neglected in their father’s care and the testing period revealed old patterns which have been apparent in the evidence over a course of years. Rehabilitation for the boys did not work in proceedings with the foster carers, the social worker, the Guardian and the legal professionals all working to underpin it and make it successful together with the social work team. It is less likely to be successful after proceedings are concluded and when that scaffolding is taken away.

For Child F, return to his father would be against his wishes and feelings. He has not seen his father since 2024 and in my view he has been scapegoated by the family. The father’s parenting behaviour and managing the dynamic between the boys was set out in the 2024 judgment in which I accepted Dr Wolfson’s view that his parenting behaviour at times put the relationship with the boys under strain.

The father is ill-placed now, given his conviction, to help the boys manage their aggression between each other or indeed the relationship between them and the outside world without aggression. Child D’s approach to the world around him has shifted into a negative, suspicious and aggressive stance, particularly to women, since he began to spend more time with his father and this places Child D at risk of physical harms if he gets into fights or is involved in altercations in the community and it places him at risk of emotional harm in alienating people from himself if he continues to respond to the world in this way.

The father has no support network in the UK so if he is unwell or needs to go to hospital there is no backup other than the Local Authority. His health is fragile. He is often tired and struggles to meet the noise the needs of physical teenage boys with competing needs. He is just about meeting Child C’s needs. He has not helped the social workers to support him and it is highly likely that any family support worker would struggle to work within the home and finally it would be catastrophic if the boys needed to be removed again.

I also weigh in the balance that Child F is settled, Child E is settled in foster care and Child D may be described as settling in his residential placement.

I look at placing with the mother in Country Z. She loves them. They would be with their siblings. Their heritage from Country Z would be an everyday reality for them. She would have the support of her wider family including the financial and practical support.

Against this they would not have the therapeutic work that will be offered here in the UK to rebuild relationships. She has had a negative assessment and has used physical chastisement on the other children. Social services are involved with the family in Country Z. Child F is actually thriving in foster care.

None of the children want to go to Country Z. I have not seen a meaningful sibling relationship develop between the boys and their Country Z siblings, sadly, over the course of these proceedings. That is no one’s fault; it is a function of the distance. If they went to Country Z they would not be with Child C.

The mother has very little insight into the boys’ lived experience over the past few years and has a very little understanding of Child F’s perspective and I think would struggle to help the boys rebuild relationships with him. Her relationship with the father was domestically abusive and yet she says the father is “excellent”, suggesting that she may be unable to safeguard the children from that dysfunctional dynamic. Her family take a very dim view of the father, leading to tension. It is unclear the extent to which she would allow the uncles to be involved in their boys’ lives once they are there and they are at a critical stage of their education. Child F has just started secondary school, Child D entering GCSE years and Child E close behind. A new education system which potentially requires them to speak [redacted language] would be very challenging, particularly when exams are taken at the age of 17.

Separation from their father would have an impact because they have a great emotional attachment with him. The mother has not cared for them for five years and that relationship would need to be rebuilt. They would lose their support network here in the UK of learning mentors and friends and the full details of the Country Z proceedings and domestic abuse were not revealed until cross-examination, suggesting that the court and the professionals were running on incomplete information about what family life was like.

Finally, the delay that would be engendered by looking to place the boys in Country Z would have a very negative impact given the length of proceedings and the harm that that has caused the boys in and of itself. These boys desperately need finality. I have no live Part 25 application and any adjournment would not be necessary to deal with these proceedings justly. If the placement in Country Z did take place and broke down, that would be catastrophic.

In relation to the uncle, that brings similar advantages and disadvantages but with the added complication that he is not somebody the children currently have a relation with. He has underestimated the impact of their lived experience and their emotional needs, and it is not clear how he would be able to put a boundary between the mother and the boys, or indeed promote their relationship with the father whom he intensely dislikes.

I look at the option of Local Authority care. It means the boys would be with vetted carers who would help them work through the emotional fallout of their relationship with each other and these proceedings. They would have stability and security if the Local Authority had parental responsibility to meet their evolving needs. The Local Authority would help them maintain contact with their father and mother and rebuild the relationship with each other. They would be given therapeutic work as a firm foundation for this. It accords with Child F’s wishes and needs. It could help reset the family narrative away from scapegoating Child F with a truthful explanation of the conviction and what that means. They would be supported to get to school and helped with independent living skills and boundaries, and taught how to interact with the world without aggression.

Child E and Child F are both settled in foster care and Child F has expressed a wish to stay there. Child D is in residential care and although it is not a family setting, it seems to me that he is settling there and maybe the different workers who come and go make it easier for him than having a replacement family figure in foster care, because if there is one carer you do not get on with there will be others coming through the door who you might. None of the children have tried to leave placement recently, their basic needs are met. They are physically safe from each other, from Child C and from any aggression from the father, and they will not be exposed to the dysfunctional dynamic between the parents or domestic abuse.

Against this, they would be separated from each other and from Child C, from their mother and their father, and I weigh this heavily in the balance. It goes against Child D and Child E’s expressed wishes and feelings. There is always the risk they may vote with their feet, they have done so in the past, although there is no current evidence that they intend to do so. It will have an immense emotional impact on Child D in particular. Child D is increasingly angry and distrustful of professionals and he may continue to be so. Child D is not in a family placement. Conversely, if they are placed with a foster carer that father figure may find it hard to build relationships with them because of course they cannot replace their father. It means they are not in Country Z with their wider family. The father would not, in my view, be able to support the boys’ settling from an emotional perspective in foster care, and I am pessimistic about his ability to do so in the future. Placements can and do break down, and further moves would be very destabilising.

Rehabilitation was tried before and there is an argument it might work better now, there is certainty and finality. However, remaining in foster care means that these children have a corporate parent involved in their lives, and children do suffer harm in foster care, sadly, and I cannot guarantee that that would not happen to these children.

Having viewed the pros and cons of each realistic option I conclude that a supervision order for Child C and care order for each of the younger boys is necessary and proportionate.

I turn to contact, and it seems clear to me the boys have their own views on contact, and the Local Authority have been making all reasonable efforts to help them come to a point where they are ready to speak to their mother and see their father. In the light of the evidence before me the Local Authority may wish to consider more rigorous monitoring of who the boys spend time with on their phones, or who they see when they leave their placement, and may wish to review the foster care notes in that regard. I think initially, weekly supervised contact should be at the starting point so the family can be assisted in their response to this judgment and to make sure the boys get an accurate summary of what I have found and what I have said. I think it should be reviewed after 12 weeks. Weekly is a high level of contact, and so the family will need to work with the social worker to make it enjoyable for the boys.

There should be indirect contact too but I think not unrestricted use of the boys’ phones. The boys are not yet ready to speak to their mother but I think she should be encouraged to send them messages, videos, emails, so that they know they are not forgotten and that she loves them. I think there needs to be a contact agreement setting the boundaries of contact and that 12-week period after which it will be reviewed, hopefully moving into the community. But the conditions of contact should be not bad-mouthing social workers or the Guardian and not bad-mouthing Child F, but rather trying to set the family narrative in a more positive direction.

I do not think that the mother or the father’s application for defined contact should lead me to making an order, it is not better for the boys than making no order at all, so I refuse their applications - the father’s of 11 July 2025, and the mother’s which have been repeatedly adjourned from 12 December 2023. It is clear to me that the social workers are doing all within their power to try and mend family relationships, and that the key to this is not an order but the family and the social work team working together.

In relation to a roadmap that could lead the children home, I do not think this is wise to share with the children but for the father’s benefit there needs to be work to ensure that the family narrative around Child F does not demonise him and that that narrative is reset. I think it is unrealistic to expect the father to suddenly accept the findings of the criminal court or indeed this judgement, but there has to be a narrative around the fact that the jury were asked whether they believed Child F or the father, and they believed Child F, and a stop to blaming Child F for what he said. I think there needs to be one-to-one or group work for the father to discuss what has happened and to look, from a child’s perspective, at what it must feel like or look to them.

I think the social worker needs to speak to the probation team and make sure that their work is joined up, to find out what is the best way of supporting the father going forward. The difficulty I have is I do not know what probation are doing, but what I imagined might be helpful is someone to work alongside the father and say: “I know you do not accept all this, but let us look at it how things may look to Child F, to Child D, how Child E, how we can respond to situations differently.” I am afraid I do not have the technical word for what that type of work might be, but either probation or the social worker having some child-focused one-to-one conversations with the Father would be beneficial.

Child C really needs educational training and so he will need his social worker to help him look at college and apprenticeship options and the aggression in dealing with third parties would need to stop in order for these boys to go home, so verbal or physical aggression to social workers is not helpful when following a roadmap home.

I hope that Child C’s supervision order support plan can include the following: a mentor to help him with training and education; active working of all the adults in his life to get him into college or get him the level of GCSE English and maths he needs to get there or find training. Dr Mitas, right at the beginning of these proceedings, says he will need help and support to find an apprenticeship and he also needs help to learn independent living skills. He has been seen cooking at home and I wonder if the floating support worker or Jeff might give him some tips on hygiene or find a course on it at the local college. He needs the skills to be an independent adult. The young carer’s referral needs to be progressed. There needs to be work with Child C around physical violence. He could get into more trouble with the criminal justice system unless he has a role model who helps him understand how to respond non-violently.

I think there needs to be an adult social work referral for the father. We have been told by the social worker it is best to come from his GP, but the social worker now has a GP letter which, if the father consents, could be disclosed to the adult social care.

For the other boys, looking at the foster carer notes and re-reading them, two different sets of foster carers express both concerns about Child D and Child E and whether they have any learning difficulties. That is a lay opinion but Dr Wolfson had also set out that Child E have made limited educational progress and that Child D has struggled educationally. I am not sure of the progress of Child E’ EHCP plan but I would like the social worker, please, to speak to the SEN lead in each of their schools (I think in fact it is the same one) and to make sure that all of their educational needs are properly assessed and met. They too need independent living skills; they too need role modelling on how to solve problems without aggression; and I think Child E has a behaviour mentor already at school but if not they should both have one. I do not know if mentors are helpful to them out of school.

They strike me as slightly isolated with few extracurricular activities. I do not know if martial arts or something else would be a controlled and respectful way of channelling physical expressions. I wonder if Child D needs tutoring for English and maths with his GCSE years coming up, and Child F’s plan needs to be updated to refer to his current school and any support that he can be offered emotionally needs to be actioned within that framework.

The therapeutic support mentioned in Dionne Hopkiss’s statement needs to be woven into each of the care plans. I think some of them refer to it and some of them do not. I hope families together might now be able to help these boys or a CAMHS referral may be made if they are open to it.

Subject to any further submissions, I find the threshold criteria made out and I wish to annex them, please, to the order.

I approve the care plan and the supervision plan in principle but ask for the amendments that I have suggested to be made by 22 October 2025 and the plans served and filed.

I allow the father to withdraw his Part 25 application and his application for the further assessment of the father’s cousin.

I dismiss the applications for contact, and contact I am confident will happen in accordance with the care plans but the families need to work alongside the social worker to make this a reality.

I direct a transcript of this judgment at the Local Authority’s expense.

In closing this very long and sad set of proceedings I would wish to thank those who, throughout these proceedings, have tried to put these boys first. Lucy Monteith and after her, Jeff Klein, have been dedicated social workers who really care about these boys and I hope that that consistency of concern for them will continue after these care orders are made. These social workers do very difficult jobs but they have been trying at every turn to think about what is best for these boys and I thank them for that hard work they do on the front line of social work care.

I wish to thank the lawyers for the assistance that they have given me. I think Mr Drayton is the most long-standing of the lawyers and I thank him for the consistency and continuity he has provided for the boys. I thank Mr Rhys and Mr McWatters for their more recent assistance because they have needed to grapple with a long and complicated set of proceedings, voluminous bundles, in order to provide, as they have, the excellent service to their clients, and Mr Marks for his calm ability to respond to all the demands that are put on Local Authority counsel in a long and complicated case.

I thank the Guardian for being a voice for the boys. Their views have not aligned but what they want and how they have felt have always been expressed by her in a crystal clear, child-focused manner and I know that she has done her absolute best to try and advocate a good outcome for them, whether they appreciate that or not. I thank her for her service.

I will just take any requests for correction or clarification, any further applications and then I will read the letters for the boys onto the record.

HHJ SUH: So what I will do now is read the letters to the boys. They were shared in draft with the Guardian. I am very grateful for that. They should be transcribed with the rest of the judgment because they are not private letters. I am not allowed to keep secrets.

“Dear Child D,

Thank you for meeting me and being clear and calm. I wanted to explain to you why I’ve made the decision you cannot go back to your father. I have to put you and your brothers first. What you want is very important but it’s not the only thing I have to think about.

Your father went to the criminal court. In the criminal court there are 12 independent people called a jury. They listen to everyone and are fair. They listened to your father and Child F and they believed your brother Child F and not your father. They decided your father hurt Child F. That is very serious. Child F is not the only person who says your dad can be violent. Your mum said that too and your dad thinks they are lying but I don’t agree. I agree with the jury. Child F is telling the truth and Child C too can be violent and he gets angry.

We tested what it would be like for you to go home when you stayed overnight and you went to school tired and late. The home was not clean and tidy and Child C was trying to take you to school and do some cooking, and your father got very tired. He also got very aggressive and shouted at Georgia and Lucy when they were trying to help you all. I think if you went home you would not be well looked after and I do not think you would be physically safe. You and your brothers argue a lot and someone could get badly hurt.

Your dad hurt Child F. Child F is not to blame for this. He is your brother and you only get one family in life and I hope you can find a way to mend your relationship and I asked that you have some help with this if you want to.

I know you do not want to stay in care but I do not think it is safe to go home. I expect you will feel very angry with me but I want you to know that I have made this decision which I genuinely think is best for you. You are clearly intelligent and have great potential. I hope you will be able to settle where you are to work for your GCSEs and make good choices for your future. I wish you all the very best for your next steps.”

To Child E:

“Dear Child E,

I am the judge who’s been making decisions for your family. I wanted to explain to you I have made the decision you can’t go back to your father. I have to put you and your brothers first. What you want is very important but it is not the only thing I have to think about. I know you want to go home but I have to consider everything.

Your father went to the criminal court, and the jury listened to your father and Child F. The jury are 12 independent people who have to be fair, and they believed your brother Child F and not your father. They decided he hurt Child F. That is very serious. Child F is not the only person who says your father can be violent; your mother said that too. Your father thinks that they’re lying but I don’t agree. I agree with the jury. Child F is telling the truth, and Child C too can be violent when he gets angry.

We tested what it would be like for you to go home when you stayed overnight with your father and you went to school tired and late, and the home was not clean and tidy. Child C was trying to take you to school and do some cooking. Your father got very tired and he also was very aggressive and shouted at Georgia and Lucy when they were trying to help you all. I know you do not want to stay in care but I don’t think it’s safe to go home. I think it’s best for you to stay with the Foster Carer.

I would like you to have the chance to see Child F. He is not to blame for any of this and neither are you. I hope at the right time you might be able to see each other again and spend time together.

I know you won’t be happy with my decision but my job is to think about what’s best for you and I hope you understand that I make this decision because I honestly think it is best for you, even though you won’t like it. I wish you and your brothers all the very best for the future.”

To Child C:

“Child C,

Thank you for coming to see me so many times. I know you want all your brothers to be at home and I know you love them. You’re a thoughtful big brother.

I have to put you and your brothers first. What you want is very important but it’s not the only thing I have to think about; I have to think about what’s best for you all.

When your father went to the criminal court, 12 people listened to him and to Child F. These 12 people are called a jury. They don’t know your family. They have to be fair. They believed Child F and not your father. The criminal court found that your father hurt Child F. That is very serious. Your father doesn’t agree with this, but that’s the law. There are other people who have told me that your father was violent including your mother, and I know you get across at times and get physical with others, and I need to make sure everyone’s safe. Everyone agrees that you should stay at home with your father.

We tested Child D and Child E coming home last year. When they stayed at home they did not get to school on time and were too tired to learn properly. The home was not very clean and tidy and your father shouted at Georgia and Lucy when they wanted to help him. It did not work very well. I don’t think your father can keep Child D and Child E safe. It is different for you because you are older and you and your father are very close. So I think it is best that you stay with your father and your brother stay and care. I know that’s not what you want but I think it’s best for you and your brothers.

None of this is your fault. None of it is Child F’s fault either. I hope you might meet him again when he’s ready. He’s not to blame for any of this.

I hope that [the social worker] can help you learn to cook and look after yourself. I hope you can become an independent young man and go to college or work.”

And finally:

“Dear Child F,

I am the judge who’s been hearing all about your family and I wanted to explain to you why I agree that it’s best for you to stay in foster care.

You were very brave in telling teachers what was happening for you at home. You’re not the only person who says your father can be violent; your mother said that too. Your father thinks you’re lying but the jury did not agree, and I agree with the jury - I believe you. Child C can be violent when he gets angry too. You and your brothers can argue among yourselves and someone might get seriously hurt.

When you and your brothers were at home I think your father was struggling to look after you all. We tested what it would be like for Child D and Child E to go home when they stayed overnight. It did not work well. If you went home I think you would not be well looked after and I do not think you’d be physically safe, so I agree with you that it is best to stay in foster care.

I’m so impressed with how well you’re doing and hear you’ve started your secondary school. I hope you enjoy it there and are settling in with your new carers.

I think your brothers blame you for being in care, but that’s not fair; it’s not your fault. You did the right thing in speaking up and I hope as time goes by, Child D, Child E and Child C might come to understand this. You are not to blame for any of this.

I know you don’t want to see or speak to anyone in your family at the moment and I respect that but you only get one family in life and no parent is perfect. Every family has their brokenness and their difficulties and I hope that over time you feel that you might begin to mend your relationships with your brothers and even your parents. No one else in your life will have known you ever since you were born or care about you in the same way, whatever their faults, so I am clear that getting to know them again will be in your time and no one is going to force you, but I hope you will think about it as time goes by.

I wish you all the very best for the future.”

----------------