AZ (A Child) (Special Guardianship Order), Re

I have concluded that AZ’s welfare will be best met by living with Mr and Mrs B under a Special Guardianship Order. While acknowledging the harm that may arise from separating AZ from his sibling C and the bond he shares with Mr D, I have found these disadvantages are outweighed by the permanence, stability, and therapeutic parenting offered by Mr and Mrs B. They have extensive experience in trauma-informed care and can better meet AZ’s emotional and educational needs. This arrangement removes AZ from ongoing risks linked to parental conflict and ensures he will no longer be a looked-after child subject to statutory intervention, while maintaining meaningful relationships with his siblings, Mr D and birth family through contact that I have confidence Mr and Mrs B will positively promote in a flexible but child focused way.

I have considered all welfare checklist factors. I have noted AZ’s fluctuating wishes and feelings but conclude that decisions must be made in his best interests, wishing and feelings being but one welfare factor to consider. I do not intend to make a spend time with child arrangements order, having full trust in Mr and Mrs B to manage family time flexibly. The decision I have reached prioritises AZ’s long-term stability, emotional and educational needs, protects him from further harm and within a secure and loving family environment without statutory involvement.

In these proceedings I am concerned with AZ (6 years old). AZ’s interests are protected though his Guardian and represented at this hearing by counsel Miss Todd.

The applicant local authority is Staffordshire County Council, referred to as “LA”. The LA is represented by Counsel, Mr Lycett.

AZ’s mother is M who I will refer to as “Mother”. Mother is represented by counsel Miss Richards.

AZ’s biological father is F who is deceased.

The third respondent is Mr D. Mr D is represented by counsel Mr Fraser.

Mr and Mrs B are also respondents and they represent themselves.

AZ has two half siblings who have been referred to throughout this hearing and remain an important part of the family dynamic. C is only 3 years old and lives with Mr D (and therefore AZ) who is her biological father. E is 16 years old. E now lives in semi-independent accommodation but remains in contact with Mr D and her siblings.

The original application was for discharge of the care order in respect of AZ and in respect of his sister E who was 15 years old at the time. E was also, at the time, subject to a Special Guardianship Order (SGO) in favour of Mr and Mrs S (not involved in these proceedings). E’s application was disposed of by HHJ Bailey at an earlier hearing.

At the time proceedings commenced E and AZ were both living with Mother and Mr D along with C.

The first hearing was on 5 July 2024 before District Judge Masters. The order made on that occasion recites that the application was for a Supervision Order in respect of E with an invitation for the court to discharge the SGO she was subject to at the time because she had been back in Mother’s care since July 2023. As far as AZ was concerned the LA confirmed their position as seeking a discharge of the care order with a supervision order in substitution as AZ had been back in Mother’s care since May 2022. Various case management directions were made with a further hearing listed before HHJ Bailey on 5 September 2024.

On the 5 September 2024 the former special guardians for E are recorded as agreeing to the discharge of the SGO on the basis E was no longer living with them. The order, by consent, discharges them as a party to the proceedings.

I note Mother was unrepresented at this stage and this appears to be despite the LA applying for a supervision order for E, under which circumstances I would expect her to be eligible for non means and non-merits tested legal aid. It seems to me the same would have applied for E’s special guardians. It appears from the order of HHJ Bailey that it was the court who urged Mother to seek independent legal advice, and I am not clear what efforts were made by the LA before this to ensure Mother understood her entitlement.

I note HHJ Bailey also made an ICO in respect of E at the hearing on 5 September 2024, determining that the LA should share parental responsibility. That decision was supported by the Guardian but opposed by the LA. In respect of AZ the LA’s position as at the 5 September 2024 was recorded as ‘…it does not seek any orders today in respect of AZ and is content for the status quo to prevail to enable it to review its current application before the court following the filing of further updating evidence’.

The order dated 5 September 2024 also refers to C who at that point was not subject to any proceedings. The order records: ‘…there being no application before the court in respect of the non-subject half sibling C who is almost 2 years of age and with whom the LA has no concerns. The LA confirming the C is currently on a child in need plan to ensure that there is social work oversight of this child and that she is included in any decision making in respect of E and AZ. The LA will also fund a nursery provision to enable Mother and Mr D to continue to work with the LA in respect of the current work’. HHJ Bailey timetabled the case through to filing of final evidence and listed a final hearing on 20 December 2024. It appears the hearing on 20 December 2024 was vacated by consent with a re-timetable of the directions.

A hearing took place before District Judge McQueen on 22 January 2025 but that was in respect of an application made regarding C. I note the Guardian invited the court to make an ICO at that hearing and that position was opposed by the LA, Mother and Mr D. The order recites that the court took the view that the LA needed to share PR for C ‘given that the risks to this child are the same as those in respect of Mr D and AZ and the LA shares parental responsibility for both of these children, therefore it follows, that C should be treated with parity in these circumstances’.

Also recited on the order dated 22 January 2025 is that Mother ‘has not had direct contact with C and her siblings nor lived in the family homes since 31 December 2024 and despite attempts to contact her by the social work team and the IPS team, her whereabouts and current circumstances remain unclear to the LA. The father (Mr D) has today confirmed that Mother has been having video contact with C and AZ and he has assisted in facilitating this.’

There is also a recital regarding Mr and Mrs B within the order dated 22 January 2025 that confirms Mr D informed the LA that they (Mr and Mrs B) wished to be considered as alternative carers in the event the children cannot remain in the parents care, although noted their fostering registration had lapsed.

The order further recited that a full fostering assessment of Mr D would commence as an ‘alternative carer’ for AZ, noting he does not have parental responsibility. An interim care order was made by the District Judge and further directions through to a hearing before HHJ Bailey.

The next hearing was before HHJ Bailey on 5 February 2025, and the two sets of proceedings were consolidated. The order recites that Mother agreed not to return to the family home on the basis her relationship with Mr D had ended and Mr D had care for all three children. There is also a recital setting out the courts concerns regarding delay but recognising the change in circumstances since the original application for discharge of the care order/SGO. The ICOs for E and C were re-stated with further directions. Those directions included the filing of a viability assessment in respect of Mr and Mrs B. Further dates were set for the filing of final evidence with an IRH listed on 17 June 2025.

The matter then returned for a further case management hearing before Recorder Harrison on 20 May 2025. The LA could not file final evidence as earlier directed because of a delay with the fostering panel for Mr D. The Recorder extended the timescales and vacated the IRH before HHJ Bailey.

HHJ Bailey next heard the case at an IRH on 11 July 2025. In respect of AZ the LA sought a Special Guardianship Order to be made in favour of Mr and Mrs B and the Guardian supported placement of AZ with Mr and Mrs B under a Special Guardianship Order. All parties consented to final orders in respect of E and C. The order recites that proceedings could not conclude for AZ because ‘the plan for him is contested by Mother and Mr D’. The recital continues to say ‘…also the LA has reflected on it’s position following receipt of the final analysis of the Guardian and now sought a Special Guardianship Order to be made in favour of Mr and Mrs B noting that no such application was before the court and Mr and Mrs B not being present. Mother and Mr D’s position is recorded as opposing the plan in respect of AZ. The matter was timetabled through to a final hearing with an ELH of 1 day in anticipation of the only witnesses being the LA team manager and the Guardian.

HHJ Bailey made a final care order in respect of E (her remaining in the care of Mr D) and a final supervision order in respect of C together with a ‘live with’ CAO in favour of Mr D. As above, directions were made through to a final hearing on 18 August 2025.

On 23 July 2025 Mr and Mrs B lodged an application for a Special Guardianship Order (and permission).

Sadly, the final hearing on 18 August 2025 was ineffective. I have been referred to the order dated 18th of August 2025 on numerous occasions throughout this hearing. There are recitals on the order setting out why the final hearing was ineffective. The order identified that it was likely the court would need to hear evidence not just from the professional witnesses previously identified but also from Mr D, Mother and Mr and Mrs B (therefore one day being insufficient). The order also made it clear that Mr and Mrs B had attended the hearing and they were putting themselves forward in competition to Mr D. There is also a recital setting out concerns that were expressed as to the lack of analysis within the evidence before the court and by the local authority and the children’s Guardian surrounding the local authority’s care plan for AZ, in particular the impact of separation of the siblings and his separation from Mr D. Furthermore, there is a recital making it plain the court expressed concern as to the position for AZ who is a looked after child but ended up in an arrangement described as a private family arrangement where his care is shared between Mr D who does not have parental responsibility for him and Mr and Mrs B. The recital continues ‘the court made it clear there were many questions to be answered as to the local authority’s management of this position and its decision-making surrounding the same and indicated it may publish the judgement at the conclusion of this matter’. It is quite understandable why I have been referred to these recitals but it is also important to bear in mind that Her Honour Judge Bailey did not hear any oral evidence at the hearing on 18 August 2025 and the recitals may express the opinion of the parties and the court but no findings or final determination was made at that hearing. In any event the hearing could not be effective, and directions were made through to an issues resolution hearing on 21 October 2025.

The issues resolution hearing was ineffective insofar as it was not possible for Her Honour Judge Bailey to make final decisions. The order records that the court agreed the matter should be listed for final hearing allocating five days for the same. The matter was listed through to a pre-trial review before me on 5 November 2025 followed by a five-day final hearing commencing 10th of November 2025. My first involvement with this case was therefore 5 November 2025 for a pre-trial review.

On the 3 November 2025 a C2 application was lodged on behalf of Mr D. The application is for a ‘live with’ child arrangement order (that is no longer actively pursued) and/or an order pursuant to section 34 of the Children Act 1989.

This final hearing commenced on 10 November 2025. I started hearing oral evidence on day one of the hearing and was able to conclude the evidence of both social workers, SW1 and SW2. On the morning of day two I was told that none of the other local authority witnesses were required by the parents. That should have allowed me to proceed and hear evidence from Mr D but rather frustratingly that was not possible because the Guardian had been excused from attending day two on the assumption that the court would only be hearing from professional witnesses (with the Guardian updated by her counsel). I understand the Guardian had a personal commitment that I respected but all parties were of the opinion that the Guardian should hear the evidence of Mr D, Mother and Mrs B. The evidence resumed on day three, when during the remainder of the hearing I heard oral evidence from Mr D, Mother, Mrs B and the Guardian. The Guardian’s evidence took far longer to hear than the witness template envisaged. I could have used my case management powers to limit the cross examination, but I was of the view that the questions being put were relevant to the welfare decision I am being asked to make. Again, with some frustration, I agreed it would not be possible to conclude closing submissions by the end of day five and therefore I directed that written submissions be prepared on day six and I listed a further two hours of court time on day seven Thursday, 20 November 2025, to enable the parties to supplement written submissions.

The position of the local authority is AZ should be placed with Mr and Mrs B. At the commencement of the final hearing the local authority invited the court to maintain the care order for AZ and endorse the care plan that will see him move to the care of Mr and Mrs B. It is noteworthy that this position is different to that formed by the local authority at the hearing on 11 July 2025 when the local authority changed its position in support of the making of a special guardianship order. It is also noteworthy that on day two of this final hearing the local authority again changed its position. The local authority position as amended on day two of this final hearing is that it now seeks a discharge of the care order substituted by a special guardianship order in favour of Mr and Mrs B. The local authority accepts that if I reject its primary care plan and the application made by Mr and Mrs B then I should instead endorse the continuation of the existing care order with AZ remaining in the care of Mr D.

Mother’s position has been consistent as far as AZ is concerned and she invites the court to reject the local authority care plan and instead endorse what has been determined as a shadow care plan that would see AZ remain in the care of Mr D under the existing care order. In the event I support the primary care plan of the local authority and the application by Mr and Mrs B Mother seeks more contact with AZ than currently proposed. I understand Mother’s position to be that she would seek weekly contact with AZ or at the very least fortnightly. It is important I also remind myself of Mother’s position as far as Mr and Mrs B is concerned. It is clear to me that Mother does not question the sincerity of Mr and Mrs B, nor their ability to meet AZ’s needs nor indeed their love for AZ. Miss Richards confirmed in closing submissions that neither she nor Mother level criticism towards Mr and Mrs B who she described, accurately in my view, as having presented themselves with dignity. I think it is important I recognise this position because it is one of the unusual features of this case. When this case first came to my attention at the pre-trial review, I made a comment indicating my concern that a five-day final hearing would be a “fight between those who love AZ the most”. Although the final hearing has no doubt been unpleasant for all parties it is credit to Mother, Mr D (and their counsel) and Mr and Mrs B that their positive relationship seems to have endured. In closing submissions Miss Todd made a comment about the guns having been turned on the local authority and the Guardian but it was clear to me that the parents had not turned their guns towards Mr and Mrs B. They and their counsel should take credit for that child focused approach.

Mr D’ position is that AZ should remain living with him. Mr D accepts this would be under a care order meaning the existing order would continue but with an amended care plan. Mr D seeks AZ to continue having contact with Mr and Mrs B at a rate of once per fortnight. Mr D’ position and attitude towards Mr and Mrs B mirrors that set out above. In the event I endorse the plan of the local authority Mr D seeks additional time with AZ than that set out in the SGO support plan and he also invites me to make an order that would give him PR.

Mr and Mrs B, having already been given permission to apply for a special guardianship order, invite me to make such an order as a final order in these proceedings. Mr and Mrs B seek the long-term care of AZ and say a care order is not necessary nor proportionate. Mr and Mrs B are committed to the family time plan presented by the local authority but also make it clear to me that they intend to take a flexible child focused approach towards contact arrangements.

The Guardian also invites me to make a special guardianship order in favour of Mr and Mrs B. The Guardian’s position is that she is firmly of the view that a placement with Mr D, either under a care order or otherwise, will not meet AZ’s needs and will cause him harm. The Guardian also supports the level of contact outlined by the local authority.

As far as proposed family time arrangements are concerned there is an updated special guardianship order support plan that sets out proposals, in the event I make a special guardianship order in favour of Mr and Mrs B. The proposals are agreed by the LA, B’s and the Guardian. The proposals are that AZ will spend time with Mr D and C for a 48-hour period once every four weeks. It is proposed that E can visit during that same period. In addition, it is proposed that there be further overnight stays during holidays and celebrations by agreement.

In addition to the above it is proposed that AZ would spend time with C and E for four hours every four weeks facilitated by the Bs with Mr D attending if he wishes.

As far as Mother is concerned it is proposed that AZ spends time with Mother for a period of four hours every four weeks supervised by Mr and Mrs B. It is proposed that this may, if possible, be combined with the time that Mother sees C, therefore affording additional sibling contact.

There are also proposals for AZ to spend time with maternal grandmother and paternal grandfather and paternal uncle.

In cross examination Mrs B told me that her and Mr B are regarding what is written down as a minimum arrangement. Mrs B said that their number one priority is to make sure AZ is settled and pointed out that when you add up the minimum arrangements it is ‘quite a lot and that is a lovely thing to do’ but they do not want the arrangements to be onerous. Moreover, Mrs B told me that the number one point is that AZ seeing his family members is central and that they know he has an extremely strong bond with Mr D and C and it is extremely important for AZ to maintain those relationships, but that AZ needs a safe base where he can be settled. Mrs B was very keen, I think this was more to reassure the parents rather than myself, to point out that they will offer flexibility and that they can manage arrangements between themselves with the four adults being able to communicate.

I intend to outline an overview of the written evidence before the court. I think that is important in the context of this case and my judgement because it could have been easy to lose sight of AZ and the issues relevant to his welfare. The final hearing has been contested and many of the concerns raised by the parents relate to the conduct of the LA during their care planning for AZ, and more recently the conduct of the Guardian during her enquiries. Nevertheless it is clear to me that a lot of assessment has taken place and Miss Todd was right to remind me, in closing submissions, that the evidence in this case goes beyond the oral evidence of the limited witnesses that I have heard from and there is a lot of evidence in the bundle regarding AZ’s needs, the likely effect on him of any change of circumstances and the harm he has suffered. With that in mind I revisited key documents prior to coming to a final decision. It is also important that I consider the context in which I am being asked to make the orders sought, the particular circumstances of the case is important. Whilst I will set out a summary within this judgement, if I do not mention a document or assessment, it is not because I have not considered it.

The family have been known to social care for a substantial period. Mother has a long history of involvement with the LA dating back to 2009 in respect of E, who was placed under a Child Protection Plan for emotional harm in 2010. Previous proceedings concluded with E being placed with maternal family members under a Special Guardianship Order due to concerns about domestic abuse, substance misuse, and an inability to meet needs.

In 2019, during her pregnancy with AZ, further referrals were made citing domestic abuse, previous cannabis misuse, and mental health difficulties. A Child Protection Plan was implemented in May 2019 but ended later that year following the death of AZ’s father. From October 2019 onwards, concerns resurfaced regarding Mother’s ability to care for AZ, specifically relating to drug misuse, mental health, and exposure to domestic abuse. Despite support being offered, Mother struggled to engage with professionals, leading to the initiation of PLO in August 2020.

On 21 September 2020, the court made an Interim Care Order. A contested removal hearing on 23 September 2020 resulted in AZ remaining in Mother’s care under a revised agreement. During this period, Mother relocated to a different area before returning to, but concerns persisted about her cooperation, drug misuse, and lifestyle choices. In December 2020, following a further contested hearing, AZ was removed and placed with extended family. This placement broke down in January 2021, and AZ entered foster care (Mr and Mrs. B).

Parenting assessments during 2020 and 2021 concluded that Mother had failed to address issues of mental health and substance misuse, placing AZ at risk of significant harm. Subsequent assessments in 2022 noted positive changes, including a stable relationship with Mr D, improved engagement with services, and greater insight into previous difficulties. Professionals observed Mr D provided stability and support, enabling Mother to make progress. I understand Mother and Mr D commenced their relationship in 2021.

On 27 May 2022, aged 2 years, AZ was rehabilitated to his Mother’s care (having been placed with Mr and Mrs B since 12 January 2021 – 16 months). A final care order was made by District Judge Bailey (as she then was) on 8 July 2022. The final threshold found by the court on 8 July 2022 can be summarised; Mother had previously had a child removed due to neglect and continued to present with similar concerns, including drug and alcohol misuse, domestic violence, and poor mental health. Mother repeatedly breached written agreements by leaving AZ in the care of unknown adults, failed to engage with mental health services, and provided dishonest accounts to professionals. These factors, taken together, amounted to a pattern of behaviour which placed AZ at risk of both physical and emotional harm. Again, this is an important factual context when considering relevant welfare checklist factors.

I know that by May 2024 the local authority sought a discharge of the care order. The statement filed by the LA in support of the application noted that AZ had remained in his Mother’s care since July 2022 and is observed to be settled and thriving, with his physical and emotional needs being met. Some developmental and educational concerns were noted, these being addressed through appropriate referrals and school support. E, then 15, was noted to have returned to her mother’s care in July 2023 following a period with her father, but her emotional well-being having been adversely affected by parental conflict and instability, evidenced by episodes of self-harm and strained relationships. The statement stated that Mother had demonstrated significant progress in stabilising her lifestyle and engaging with support services; however, a recent domestic abuse incident in January 2024 and E’s ongoing vulnerabilities indicate that continued oversight is necessary. The LA sought a discharge of the Care Order for AZ and the Special Guardianship Order for E, subject to the making of a six-month Supervision Order to ensure the family received the support required to maintain stability and safeguard the children’s welfare.

The Guardian prepared an initial analysis in August 2024, at the point the LA were seeking discharge of the Care Order. The Guardian expressed concern about the stability of the family environment. The Guardian noted that whilst Mother and Mr D had made some positive changes, the home continued to be characterised by volatile arguments, including a serious domestic abuse incident in January 2024 and ongoing tension between Mother and E. E remained highly vulnerable, with a history of trauma, emotional dysregulation, and frequent self-harm, compounded by the absence of therapeutic support and inadequate boundaries at home. The Guardian opined that E had been at heightened risk of grooming and exploitation, having disclosed sexual activity with older men and sharing explicit images online. AZ, though generally settled, was performing below age expectations and exhibited behavioural difficulties at school. The Guardian opined that AZ’s exposure to family conflict and the potential loss of support if the Care Order were discharged were matters of concern. The Guardian also highlighted gaps in the evidence, including missing assessments, progress reports, and information about parental engagement with support services.

The Guardian did not support the LA plan to discharge the Care Order for AZ at that stage. The Guardian recommended an updated social work assessment addressing the parenting capacity for all three children, the impact of parental mental health and substance misuse, and how each child’s needs were met within the family unit.

On the 4 December 2024 the local authority filed a statement prepared by LN (social worker). The statement says that the LA had remained concerned about the stability and safety of the home environment and that despite improvements and the implementation of a safety plan, the children had witnessed arguments and aggression between Mother and Mr D, creating emotional harm and instability. Mother’s emotional wellbeing had deteriorated following her mother’s cancer diagnosis and a recent bereavement, and she had struggled to regulate her emotions, sometimes leaving the home for extended periods. Professionals had also raised concerns about Mother’s presentation, suggesting possible alcohol use. E had continued to self-harm, used cannabis, and expressed frustration about Mother’s behaviour, while AZ had remained below expected academic levels and required additional support. C had been too young to protect herself and had been exposed to parental arguments, placing her at risk of emotional harm. Considering these concerns, the LA no longer supported the discharge of the Care Order.

A further statement was filed by LN dated 10 January 2025 informing the court that the LA updated the safety plan to restrict Mother to daytime contact only, leaving after AZ’s bedtime, and increased IPS visits alongside intensive parenting work. Mr D had assumed primary care by this point. The court was informed that a viability assessment was underway, with Mr D receiving Regulation 24 payments as a temporary carer. Mother had left the family home (leaving on 31 December 2024).

The viability assessment of Mr D was prepared with the same date, 10 January 2025. The assessment informs that Mr D has been assessed as a viable kinship carer for E and AZ, having provided consistent care and established strong bonds with both children. AZ refers to him as “Daddy,” and E feels safe in his care. Mr D was also said to be committed by attending health and education appointments, engaging with professionals, and completing a parenting assessment, supported by a 12-week IPS program to strengthen his skills. Mr D was willing to remain at home full-time and work with the Local Authority under a robust safety plan that required Mother to leave the home after 7 pm to prevent further domestic conflict. While concerns remained about previous domestic abuse incidents, overcrowded housing, financial reliance on Universal Credit, and historic criminal convictions (with no issues since 2017), Mr D has shown openness, resilience, and adherence to safeguarding measures. The LA recommended continuing the placement under Regulation 24 with ongoing IPS support, weekly visits, and housing assistance, subject to completion of DBS checks and further exploration of Mr D’ background.

The Guardian filed a further report dated 17 January 2025, but this was solely in relation to C and recommended the making of an interim care order whilst remaining at home with her father, Mr D.

Mr D filed a statement that was approved by him on 4 February 2025 confirming he was caring for C full-time following his separation from Mother, while also caring for AZ during weekdays and facilitating his contact with Mr and Mrs B (at this stage AZ was spending a day each weekend with Mr and Mrs B) and maternal grandmother. Mr D expressed disappointment that an Interim Care Order was made for C, as he supported a Supervision Order instead, and stated he has complied with all requirements, including applying for council housing to provide stability. Mr D acknowledged E’s cannabis use and denied concerns about his care, asserting that the children are well looked after. Mr D admitted he allowed Mother to collect AZ from school on 28 January, believing the previous safety plan was still in place, and stressed he does not hold parental responsibility for E or AZ. He emphasised his commitment to the children, particularly C, and his desire to prevent her removal from his care, noting limited family support and that foster care would be the only alternative.

On the 23 February 2025 the local authority filed a viability assessment of Mr and Mrs B that noted them to be experienced former foster carers and adoptive parents. They were noted to have an established and positive relationship with AZ, having cared for him between 2021 and 2023 and continued supporting him through regular weekend stays since Christmas 2024. The assessment opined that AZ had expressed a wish to live with them and shows a strong attachment to the family. It noted the Bs live in a spacious, safe four-bedroom home, where AZ would have his own en-suite bedroom. Mr and Mrs B were noted to be in good health, financially stable, and have flexible working arrangements to meet AZ’s needs. They demonstrate a clear understanding of AZ’s emotional, educational, and health needs, including his behavioural challenges, and are committed to caring for him until adulthood. They have a strong support network of DBS checked family members and experience working with professionals under care plans. The assessment noted X, their adult daughter, to have a diagnosis, but her condition is well-managed with medication, and the family has shown the ability to maintain stability during previous difficult episodes. The assessment concludes that Mr and Mrs B were a viable option for AZ’s long-term care, with a recommendation to progress to full assessment and consider a Special Guardianship Order in the future.

The foster assessment of Mr D, completed by Megan Anderson is dated 4 April 2024. The assessment tells me that Mr D had demonstrated commitment to the children, ensuring their health needs are met, maintaining school attendance for AZ, and engaging positively with professionals. Mr D had completed extensive parenting and domestic abuse work and at that time supervised family time with Mother under a safety plan. Strengths include his strong bond with AZ, improved relationship with E, and willingness to work with the Local Authority. However, the assessment noted significant vulnerabilities remained: a history of domestic abuse with Mother, ongoing emotional ties to Mother, overcrowded and hazardous home conditions, concerns about gambling, and reliance on intensive professional support. The assessor recommended Mr D’s approval as a kinship foster carer for E and AZ, subject to continued Local Authority support, training (including safeguarding, domestic abuse, and teenage parenting), and resolution of home safety concerns. The assessment considered the national minimum fostering standards with 6 of them met with support and one ‘not met’; Promoting positive behaviour and relationships. This was said to be not met because of the history of domestic abuse between Mr D and the Mother, which the children witnessed and which caused emotional harm. Although Mr D had completed domestic abuse and parenting work and shown progress, concerns remained about his emotional connection to Mother and the risk this could undermine prioritising the children’s needs. I note this to be an enduring concern that is relevant when considering his capability to meet AZ’s needs and the harm that AZ is at risk of suffering.

There is also an addendum parenting assessment completed by VM during the period 10 March 2025 and 4 April 2025. The assessment concludes that Mr D provides stable, proactive care for the children, meeting their health, education, and emotional needs, though he faces challenges with overcrowded housing, financial reliance, and stress when co-parenting. Mother, while loving and engaged in some programs, continues to struggle with mental health, housing instability, substance misuse history, and inconsistent parenting, requiring supervised contact and intensive support. The report concluded by recommending the children’s welfare is best served by Mr D as the primary carer with ongoing professional support, while Mother needs significant intervention to address risks and maintain safe involvement.

The Special Guardianship Report of Mr and Mrs B, prepared by AS, is dated April 2025. The assessment tells me that they are highly suitable Special Guardians for AZ. They previously cared for AZ as foster carers and have maintained a strong, loving bond through regular weekend stays. Their home is safe, spacious, and financially secure, and they have a robust support network of family and friends who are familiar with AZ. Both Mr and Mrs B have extensive experience and training in therapeutic parenting, trauma-informed care, and child development, and they demonstrate the ability to provide stability, structure, and emotional warmth. Observations confirm that AZ thrives in their care, showing secure attachments and expressing his wish to live with them “forever.”

The assessment identifies numerous strengths, such as their commitment to promoting AZ’s identity and maintaining family relationships with his siblings, Mr D and Mother. They have consistently facilitated family time and are prepared to continue supporting contact arrangements in a safe and structured way. While there are minor vulnerabilities, such as managing future contact with Mother and past family health challenges, these are mitigated by strong protective factors, resilience, and a restorative approach to managing difficulties. Their ability to safeguard AZ and advocate for his best interests were evidenced throughout the assessment.

The assessment also opines that the current arrangement with Mr D is not sustainable long-term due to his reliance on Mr and Mrs B and concerns about his capacity to meet AZ’s needs. A Special Guardianship Order is recommended, opining this offers AZ permanency and security whilst reducing LA involvement and normalising his life. The assessment tells me that Mr and Mrs B’s motivation is genuine (something Mother and Mr D agree) and child-focused, and their plan includes promoting sibling relationships and family identity alongside providing a loving, stable home through to AZ’s independence.

I must also note the sibling assessment prepared by HK dated 2 May 2025, although I do not intend to place any great weight on the same. I say that because it seems to me that by the comments recited on the order of HHJ Bailey in August and the subsequent directions for a further report mean, updating sibling assessment is the one that more weight could (and I will come to that) be placed. Indeed, I have sympathy with the position advanced by Miss Richards at the conclusion of submissions (following a submission made by Miss Todd) that Mr D and Mother did not seek to call HK on day two but not because they agree this assessment – their understanding was the LA relied on the more recent sibling assessment. In my judgement it would be wrong of me to proceed on the basis the assessment is either ‘accepted’ or even ‘unchallenged’ in the unusual circumstances of this case but in any event the question is the weight to be attached as part of the overall canvas of evidence. The assessment notes E’s complex emotional state, cannabis use, and her desire to safeguard her siblings, AZ’s strong bond with Mr and Mrs B and developmental delays, and C’s positive progress and secure attachment to her father, Mr D. The recommendation is that E and C remain in the care of Mr D, while AZ should live with, Mr and Mrs B, under a Special Guardianship Order, ensuring all siblings maintain regular contact and familial bonds.

HK then prepared what is referred to as a ‘final statement’ on behalf of the LA dated 10 June 2025. Miss Todd was keen to bring my attention to this document in closing submissions, particularly in the context of disagreements and arguments between Mother and Mr D. The statement sets out the prolonged instability caused by parental conflict, substance misuse, and inconsistent care from Mother. The statement confirms Mr D had sole care of all three children and has demonstrated commitment to meeting their needs, while Mother has remained inconsistent, prioritising personal issues and failing to maintain regular family time (something that is no longer a complaint of the LA). The statement details Mother’s chaotic lifestyle, including substance misuse, missed contact sessions, and emotional manipulation of Mr D, which has necessitated supervised contact at a neutral venue.

At that time E wished to remain with Mr D and did not want to rebuild her relationship with her mother, citing concerns about stability and honesty. HK sets out her support for AZ’s move to Mr and Mrs B, opining that he thrives under their one-to-one care. HK states that AZ has expressed a clear preference to live with Mr and Mrs B, with whom he has secure attachments, while C remains happy and well cared for by Mr D. Educational and emotional needs are addressed, noting E’s cannabis use and school attendance issues, AZ’s developmental delays and emotional struggles, and C’s positive progress with minor speech concerns.

The LA recommendation within this statement is for E and C to remain with Mr D and maintaining AZ’s care order while transitioning him to Mr and Mrs B, who plan to seek a Special Guardianship Order. HK opines that this proposed arrangement ensures stability, safeguards the children’s welfare, and preserves sibling and family bonds through structured contact. The recommendation was Mother’s contact should remain supervised twice weekly to protect the children from further emotional harm. HK opines that the proposed plan prioritises the children’s best interests, balancing their need for security with ongoing family connections.

Mother filed a ‘final’ statement in response dated 25 June 2025. Mother explains that being asked to leave the family home in December 2024 left her homeless and struggling emotionally, which contributed to a relapse with cannabis. Mother denies using other drugs and attributes positive test results to medication from her mother or environmental exposure. Mother also refutes claims about prioritising personal interests over family time, stating that her mother’s terminal illness and lack of housing made balancing commitments difficult.

Mother sets out her concern about AZ’s planned move to Mr and Mrs B, fearing the emotional impact of separating him from his siblings. While she acknowledges the capability of the Bs and values their support, she opposes a Special Guardianship Order and hopes AZ can remain with his sisters in Mr D’s care. Mother clarifies that her new relationship was disclosed and denies rumours of marriage, though she confirms she is pregnant.

Mother's statement highlights steps she claims to have taken to improve, including engaging with drug services during pregnancy, seeking mental health support, and building a stronger support network. Mother emphasises her commitment to her children, requests that contact remain twice weekly and eventually move to a community setting and reiterates her desire to co-parent positively. While agreeing to care orders for all three children, Mother strongly argues for keeping the siblings together, citing the distress proceedings have caused, particularly for E, who has self-harmed.

Mr D’ final statement in response to the final evidence is dated 11 July 2025. He supports the LA plan for E to remain in his care under a care order. However, he opposes AZ being placed full-time with Mr and Mrs B under a Special Guardianship Order, arguing that separating AZ from C would harm their strong sibling bond and suggesting a shared care arrangement instead. For C, Mr D agrees she should stay with him but feels a supervision order would be more proportionate than a care order.

The Guardian filed a further analysis dated 2 July 2025. The Guardian outlines the prolonged instability, exposure to domestic abuse, parental substance misuse, and inconsistent care. The Guardian acknowledges Mr D as a significant figure for AZ and E, providing stability and meeting the children’s basic needs, but also his vulnerability to influence from Mother and limited capacity for trauma-informed parenting.

The Guardian outlines how AZ had lived with Mr. and Mrs. B for 18 months previously and now spends every weekend with them. He is observed to be calmer, happier, and more focused in their care, benefiting from their trauma-informed approach and structured environment. Despite Mr D’s efforts, AZ remains academically behind and struggles with emotional regulation and sibling rivalry, which professionals believe requires enhanced parenting skills. The Guardian says that C is thriving in Mr D’s care but would be impacted by separation from AZ.

The recommendations made by the Guardian are C should remain with Mr D under a 12-month Supervision Order; AZ should live with Mr. and Mrs. B under a Special Guardianship Order to achieve permanence and stability; and E should remain with Mr D under a Care Order to ensure decisions are made in her best interests. Contact with Mother should be reduced and structured to minimise emotional harm, while sibling relationships must be preserved through regular, meaningful family time. These plans aim to provide security, stability, and therapeutic care for the children after years of disruption.

There is also a document in the bundle from DY, an independent advocate for Staffordshire Children’s Rights Service. DY confirms meeting with AZ on two occasions. I was asked by Miss Richards to caution what weight, if any, I should place on this work. I agree with that, but I intend to address wishes and feelings further when considering the welfare checklist.

There is a statement from Miss D dated 11 August 2025 and Miss D confirms that she has worked with AZ since February 2025 and had regularly engaged him using age-appropriate, non-leading questions to ascertain his wishes. Miss D says that AZ consistently expressed that while he enjoys living with Mr D, C, and E and wants to maintain contact with them, his clear preference is to live with his former foster carers, Mr and Mrs B, stating, “I want to live there forever.”

RF (social worker) then files a statement dated 11 August 2025. A social worker with over 30 years of experience RF, reports that since June 2025 he has conducted three statutory visits with AZ. During these visits, AZ consistently expressed a clear preference to live with his former foster carers, Mr and Mrs B, stating “I would like that” and later adding that he also enjoys living with Mr D and C, showing strong emotional ties to both households. RF sets out how Mr D similarly indicated that he believes AZ would benefit from living with Mr and Mrs B full time, while maintaining contact with his siblings. RF concludes that AZ’s wishes should carry ‘significant weight’ and recommends any care plan prioritise his emotional wellbeing, stability, and ongoing relationships with all key adults. Unsurprisingly, RF was challenged during cross examination on the suggestion that ‘significant’ weight should be placed on wishes and feelings.

Mr D and Mother both filed position statements in advance of the final hearing listed in August 2025. Mr D’ position statement confirmed that E and C remained in his care under a Care Order and a Child Arrangements Order respectively, and he wishes AZ to do the same. While acknowledging the support of Mr and Mrs B, he opposes AZ being placed with them full-time under a Special Guardianship Order, arguing that a shared care arrangement would better serve the children’s interests and prevent sibling separation. The position statement emphasises the strong bond between AZ and C and asserts that the impact of separating siblings has not been fully analysed.

Mother's position statement similarly opposes AZ’s placement with Mr and Mrs B and supports him remaining with Mr D and his siblings, either under a Child Arrangements Order or continuing the Care Order. Mother argues that separating AZ from his siblings and Mr D, who has provided stability since 2022, would be harmful and criticises the lack of analysis on this impact. While acknowledging AZ’s reported wishes to live with the Bs, Mother questions their weight given his age and possible influence from professionals. Mother also strongly opposes reducing her contact with AZ from weekly to six times per year, advocating for continued frequent and positive contact.

There is also a statement from AR, Team Manager. This statement was filed following a direction from HHJ Bailey and clarifies that AZ’s placement with Mr and Mrs B was not unregulated; they were temporarily approved as Regulation 24 carers in February 2025 and formally approved as foster carers in May 2025. AR says this arrangement began as weekend support for Mr D after Mother left the family home in December 2024 and was endorsed by the Local Authority as part of AZ’s care plan. Mr D was approved as a connected persons foster carer in June 2025, and both he and Mr and Mrs B passed fostering panel assessments. The LA acknowledges that terminology like “private family arrangement” was misleading and confirms ongoing oversight of AZ’s care planning. The statement emphasises that Mr and Mrs B’s involvement has been positive and vital for AZ’s wellbeing, while Mr D has remained his main carer under a care order.

There is also a statement from the IRO (undated). He sets out how AZ made good progress at home, but later challenges emerged, including overcrowding and family conflicts, resulting in supervised contact with Mother and increased reliance on Mr and Mrs B. Despite interventions and safety planning by the LA, AZ’s best interests were determined to be a return to Mr and Mrs B, who have consistently supported him and expressed willingness to provide long-term care, potentially through a Special Guardianship Order, while maintaining sibling and family connections.

Unusually there is a statement from the District Lead. This statement says that AZ’s care arrangements have been complex but consistently overseen by the LA, with decisions focused on his welfare and stability. It clarifies that AZ’s placement with Mr and Mrs B was not unregulated, having been assessed under Regulation 24 and formally approved, despite earlier misleading terminology. The statement says that the LA has worked diligently to maintain AZ’s emotional wellbeing through continuity of care and positive relationships, and its priority remains achieving a permanent, nurturing environment where AZ’s holistic needs are met.

There is a report in the bundle from AZ’s school dated 10 September 2025. The statement tells me that he is working below age-related expectations and needs significant adult support to stay focused and complete tasks. AZ struggles with literacy, attention, and emotional regulation, often becoming frustrated or withdrawn when corrected. AZ’s behaviour can be influenced by peers, leading to rough play and poor choices, and he requires consistent reinforcement of rules. Despite these challenges, AZ shows enthusiasm for subjects like science and building, has positive relationships with trusted adults, and benefits from stability and encouragement. The Headteacher opines that any school move could disrupt his academic progress and emotional wellbeing, so continuity and supportive relationships are essential for his development.

RF prepared a sibling assessment dated 19 September 2025. The written assessment within the bundle seeks to evaluates the relationships and individual needs of E, AZ, and C to inform care planning. The fundamental difficulty with this document is that RF accepted, during cross examination, that it was prepared after the LA plan had been formed. RF accepted the assessment should inform the care plan, but it is apparent that did not happen. Nevertheless, the written assessment informs me that all three children share strong bonds and positive interactions, with E often taking a protective role. However, family instability, including Mother’s absence and their grandmother’s illness, has impacted E’s emotional wellbeing and availability, while AZ’s history of disrupted care has affected his emotional regulation. C remains securely attached to her father, Mr D, and benefits from stability in his care. Despite challenges, the siblings demonstrate warmth and resilience, and maintaining meaningful contact between them is considered essential for their emotional wellbeing.

RF also authored a further final statement dated 22 September 2025 and this document includes ‘an updating assessment of AZ’s needs’. The statement informs me that AZ’s early life has been marked by instability, disrupted attachments, and exposure to parental conflict and substance misuse. RF opines these experiences have impacted his emotional regulation, educational progress, and sense of security. I am told AZ is significantly behind in meeting expected educational milestones, particularly in phonics and literacy, and requires structured support both at school and at home. While Mr D has shown commitment by giving up work and engaging with professionals, he struggles to implement consistent routines for learning and emotional regulation. In contrast, Mr and Mrs B, have demonstrated a proactive and therapeutically informed approach, supporting AZ’s learning during respite care and providing a stable, nurturing environment.

RF opines that AZ’s emotional and behavioural needs are complex. He displays heightened anxiety, sensitivity to correction, and difficulty managing impulses, which are understood to stem from cumulative trauma and ongoing uncertainty. Strategies such as co-regulation techniques, structured routines, and trauma-informed care are essential to support his development. RF says that Mr and Mrs B have prior experience in raising children through trauma and have successfully implemented these approaches, whereas Mr D requires intensive training and ongoing professional support to meet these standards. It is said that Mr and Mrs B’s household offers a developmentally appropriate setting with tailored routines and individual space for AZ.

The statement informs me that the LA acknowledges the importance of AZ’s relationships with Mr D and his siblings, C and E, and recognises that separation could cause emotional distress and disrupt his sense of belonging. However, AZ has maintained a strong and enduring bond with Mr and Mrs B since infancy, viewing them as significant figures in his life. They have consistently supported family time and demonstrated a commitment to preserving AZ’s connections with his birth family. RF refers to an extensive family time plan to maintain sibling and parental relationships, including regular overnight contact with Mr D and structured visits with his siblings and Mother.

RF says in the statement that a potential change of school, if AZ moves to Mr and Mrs B, has been considered. RF says that while transitions can be challenging, the proposed school is rated outstanding and offers strong SEND provision, which could better meet AZ’s educational and behavioural needs. Protective measures, such as phased integration and ongoing monitoring through PEP meetings, would be implemented to minimise disruption. Ultimately, the Local Authority concludes that AZ’s long-term welfare, stability, and developmental needs would be best met in the care of Mr and Mrs B under a fostering arrangement, with a view to Special Guardianship within 6–12 months (a position which the LA changed on day 2 of the final hearing). RF opines that this plan prioritises therapeutic consistency, educational progress, and emotional security, while ensuring AZ maintains meaningful relationships with Mr D, his siblings, and his mother.

Mr and Mrs B filed a statement dated 29 September 2025. The statement confirms their request for a Special Guardianship Order, emphasising that permanency and stability are essential for AZ’s wellbeing. Mr and Mrs B explain that AZ has experienced significant instability, trauma, and disrupted attachments throughout his life, including bereavement, neglect, and exposure to domestic conflict. They set out how they cared for AZ full-time from January 2021 to May 2022, during which he thrived, met developmental milestones, and formed strong bonds with them and their wider family. The statement says that since late 2024, they have provided consistent care, with AZ spending at least two nights a week in their home, amounting to more daytime hours with them than with Mr D.

Mr and Mrs B say that the current arrangement with Mr D is detrimental to AZ, citing ongoing volatility in Mr D’s relationship with Mother, lack of boundaries, and incidents that have caused AZ emotional harm. Mr and Mrs B express concern that Mr D’ commitment to AZ fluctuates and appears tied to his relationship with Mother, raising doubts about long-term stability. They highlight AZ’s educational delays, low self-esteem, and lack of stimulation in Mr D’ home, where he spends excessive time on an iPad and has limited opportunities for learning or social interaction. In contrast, the Bs provide a structured, nurturing environment, support his education through one-to-one work, and offer enriching experiences such as swimming, camping, and nature activities to build confidence and resilience.

Mr and Mrs B stress that AZ needs carers who understand trauma and can provide therapeutic parenting. Drawing on their experience raising two adopted children with complex needs, Mrs B’s psychology background, and Mr B’s teaching experience, they describe their ability to advocate for AZ in education and manage his emotional and behavioural challenges. They propose moving AZ to a local school if the order is granted, giving him a fresh start and opportunities to integrate into the community. They also commit to maintaining strong family ties, including regular contact with Mother, siblings, and extended family, and say have a proven track record of supporting family time arrangements.

Mr and Mrs B believe that AZ has only been “surviving” since leaving their full-time care and urgently needs a permanent, loving, and stable home to thrive. They say that the current care plan relying on wrap-around support is untenable and that a Special Guardianship Order is the best and most secure option for AZ’s future. They request that, if the court agrees, the transition to their care should happen without delay, followed by a shortened timeframe for discharging the Care Order to provide AZ with the permanency he desperately needs.

The Guardian files a further analysis dated 2 October 2025 and provides a further overview of the concerns for the three children and the history of domestic abuse, substance misuse and poor parental mental health which led to repeated proceedings and LA involvement.

The report highlights that Mr D has provided consistent care since December 2024 and has been positively assessed as a connected carer, but concerns remain about his ability to meet AZ’s higher-level needs, particularly therapeutic parenting to address trauma. The Guardian notes that AZ spends much of his time on an iPad and lacks structured play at home. In contrast, observations show AZ is calmer, more engaged, and thriving in the B household, which offers a stable, structured, and stimulating environment. Mr and Mrs B have demonstrated commitment, completed a positive Special Guardianship assessment, and maintained strong family links, including supporting contact with Mr D and C.

The analysis acknowledges the emotional impact of separation on siblings; ‘it is acknowledged AZ and C have a strong sibling bond’, C is dependent on AZ and misses him, while E finds the idea of AZ living away from her ‘triggering’ and upsetting. However the Guardian says, these impacts can be mitigated through high levels of sibling contact and support for E. The Guardian concludes that AZ’s needs would best be met by Mr and Mrs B under a Special Guardianship Order, as this tested placement offers permanence, therapeutic care, and freedom from ongoing Local Authority intrusion. This plan prioritises AZ’s emotional recovery, educational progress, and long-term stability while preserving family relationships.

Mother filed a further final statement dated 17 October 2025. This statement re-enforced her position that AZ should remain living with Mr D and his sister C, maintaining family ties and stability. She disputes the LA plan for AZ to live with Mr. and Mrs. B, expressing concerns about secrecy in decision-making and the negative impact of separating AZ from C. Mother highlights recent improvements, including E moving to supported accommodation and her own progress; securing housing, abstaining from drugs, and engaging with professionals. Mother stresses that AZ is now more settled, particularly since E’s reduced presence, and argues that Mr D is committed and capable of meeting AZ’s needs with continued support.

Mother also raises concerns about a potential school change, stating that AZ is currently settled and moving schools could disrupt his progress. While acknowledging that Mr and Mrs B can provide above average care, she insists Mr D offers a loving and stable environment and invites the court to consider an updated parenting assessment for herself if AZ cannot stay with Mr D. As a third position, Mother supports maintaining strong family contact if AZ lives with Mr and Mrs B, requesting that her time with him be formalised in an order to prevent reduction. Mother concludes by reaffirming her commitment to positive changes and her desire to remain a consistent presence in AZ’s life.

There is a further statement from RF dated 27 September. This statement focuses on the holiday AZ enjoyed with Mr and Mrs B in October half-term and moreover the LA’s involvement in approving the same. This appears to another example of the LA decision making not being as transparent as it should be, something that has compounded the conflict in this case. Nevertheless, from a welfare decision making perspective it is common ground that AZ went on the holiday and enjoyed the time with Mr and Mrs B. Indeed, in cross examination, Mrs B described AZ as ‘living his best life’.

The Guardian filed her final report dated 4 November 2025 and this was to focus on family time and PR for Mr D. It notes that AZ has been in a shared care arrangement between Mr D and Mr and Mrs B since January 2025, with weekends spent at the Bs’ home, where, in the Guardian’s opinion, he shows a preference for their stable environment and parenting style. The report warns that continuing shared care long-term would be detrimental and recommends reducing contact to allow AZ to settle if placed with Mr and Mrs B or limiting respite if he remains with Mr D. It highlights that Mr D would likely need ongoing support and respite care, and that reducing this could risk placement breakdown. Regarding parental responsibility, the Guardian advises caution due to the short duration of Mr D’ relationship with AZ’s mother, concluding that PR is unnecessary if a Care Order or Special Guardianship Order remains in place.

Mr and Mrs B filed a further statement dated 4 November 2025 reaffirming their position that an immediate Special Guardianship Order is the best way to provide AZ with stability and permanency, arguing that continued care under a Care Order would prolong uncertainty and unnecessary involvement from children’s services. They respond to points raised by Mother and Mr D, emphasising that they have acted transparently, prioritising AZ’s wellbeing, and that shared care or ongoing arrangements are not in his best interests due to the need for consistency and structure. Mr and Mrs B highlight their commitment to maintaining AZ’s family relationships, including sibling contact, and their proven ability to supervise family time effectively. Mr and Mrs B agree with the Guardian’s analysis supporting AZ’s move to their care and urge the court to grant an SGO promptly, stating that this is a realistic, low-risk step that will finally give AZ the security he needs.

I received a further final statement (and an application for relief from sanctions) from Mr D on day one of the final hearing. The statement confirmed his position that AZ should remain in his care rather than move to Mr. and Mrs. B. The statement tells me that AZ is settled with him, has a close bond with his half-sister C, and views him as a father figure. Mr D expresses concern about the emotional impact of separating AZ from C and the wider family, especially given the maternal grandmother’s serious illness. He criticises the Local Authority and Guardian’s support for placing AZ with Mr and Mrs B, questioning their rationale and asserting that he has always supported AZ’s relationship with them.

Mr D also raises issues about the transition plan being shared prematurely, causing distress to AZ, and about holiday arrangements and perceived financial requests from the Mr and Mrs B. He worries that AZ might be influenced by Mr and Mrs B’s ability to provide more material advantages. Mr D highlights his efforts to maintain stability, including decorating a shared room for AZ and C and attempting to enrol AZ in activities. The statement confirms he has applied for a Child Arrangements Order and a Contact Order to secure his role in AZ’s life, and if AZ moves, he requests regular overnight contact and holiday time. Overall, Mr D stresses his commitment to AZ’s best interests, continuity of care, and family relationships.

I have summarised some of the written evidence in more detail than I would ordinarily but in the context of this case it seems important to try and refocus on the welfare issues for AZ and the evidence that underpins that.

There is no dispute between the parties that the court must undertake a welfare analysis in accordance with the Children Act 1989. The following applies:

The welfare of AZ is paramount under section 1(1) of the Children Act 1989.

I must apply the relevant provisions of the welfare checklist found at section 1(3).

No order should be made unless it would be in the best interest of AZ to make one; this is referred to as the ‘no order principle’ and all orders must be necessary and proportionate.

There is a presumption that unless the contrary is shown, the involvement of a parent in the life of the child concerned will further the child’s welfare.

It is well recognised that any delay is likely to be harmful to the child.

The parties Article 6 rights; the right to a fair trial and Article 8 rights; rights to family life are engaged.

The first witness to give evidence was Miss D. Miss D was first allocated as the ‘secondary’ social worker (February 2025) but also became the allocated social worker from the end of March 2025. Miss D was quite candid in accepting she had only been qualified as a social worker for five months at the time she became the allocated social worker. It was apparent from her evidence that she co-worked with the team manager, HK, and I gained the impression her role was to undertake the ‘on the ground’ social work with HK preparing the reports and court statements. In fact, Miss D told me that the case was allocated in her name because a team manager cannot be allocated.

Miss D did her best, and I think this may have been the first time she has given evidence, but I am afraid her inexperience was obvious when being crossed examined by experienced counsel. I don’t say that as a criticism because this is a case with some complexity and unusual features and she faced cross examination from very experienced and capable counsel. I note that within her evidence Miss D told me she was later replaced by the current social worker ‘because the case is so complex it needs someone experienced like RF’. I was left feeling like Miss D was very much dropped in at the deep end and perhaps without adequate supervision.

Miss D appeared somewhat reluctant to readily accept the positives of Mr D. I note she did accept he was ‘providing good enough care’ and when challenged on having a tunnel vision approach she did say ‘the care he has provided has been brilliant’ but I felt, having watched and listened with care, those things were said with some reluctance but I appreciate that may have been the nerves of giving oral evidence. Miss D was also challenged on her use of language, and it was put to her that she moved from using the term ‘dad’ to ‘Mr J…’. I was interested in this because it is something I had picked up from the papers. That said when asked whether Mr D sees AZ as his son Miss D agreed he does.

Miss D was cross examined on the weight that she has attached to AZ’s wishes and feelings. I noted that it wasn’t her who made the comment in the written evidence about placing significant weight on wishes and feelings but when asked whether AZ’s wishes and feelings weighed heavily on the decision making Miss D seem to accept that was the case. In any event Miss D accepted that she had not undertaken any further wishes and feelings work since she ceased being the main social worker and in any event since August 2025. Furthermore, Miss D accepted that by August 2025 AZ had had enough of being asked the same questions.

Understandably Miss D was cross examined on the chronology regarding the local authority decision to progress a transition plan, and in particular her involvement in Mr and Mrs B’s attempts to secure a school for AZ. Whilst Miss D said that she did not know of a planned school move she accepted a transition plan had been prepared and sent by email after a meeting on 15 May 2025. Miss D accepted that she had spoken to Mrs B after the IRO had ratified the plan, also after the meeting on 15 May 2025. Miss D told me that she informed Mrs B that they need to be using tentative language, and she said she was sure she would have concluded that conversation by saying she needed to have a discussion with her manager. Miss D was asked about the discrepancy as to whether the transition plan was sent to Mr and Mrs B earlier than the parents and Miss D maintains that she thinks the transition plan was sent to Mr and Mrs B at the same time on 2 June 2025. Miss D then seemed to suggest that there may have been two transition plans but then qualify that by saying all of her emails have been disclosed and so if there is no reference to a plan being sent within those emails then it would not have been by her. Miss D was able to reflect on why the parents may be concerned about the different treatment but repeated that if the email is not within the bundle then she did not send it.

When asked more questions about the proposed change of school and the emails in the bundle Miss D said that the local authority was of the view that as it had a care order, they could move a child from one foster carer to another. Miss D continued by saying that they then had a conversation with legal and paused the proposed transition. It was put to Miss D, I think because of the reference to Mr D being a foster carer, that this is one of the main issues that the parents have. By that I mean Mr D had ceased being referred to as father and instead foster carer and the local authority failing to recognise the role he plays in AZ’s life. Miss D disagreed with that saying that there had also been a change of social worker and a different team manager took a different approach. By that I understood that Miss D was telling me that during a period of annual leave a stand-in team manager was taking a different view and that may have led to a shift in the language used. Miss D stressed that she now apologises for the transition plan that was prepared but it was clear she was told to prepare that plan, presumably by management as a newly qualified social worker. Whatever the rights and wrongs regarding the transition plan, I formed the view that Miss D was being genuine when she thought the move could proceed because the LA had a care order and on one level that is accurate, but those more experienced supporting her should have realised such a decision was unwise in the context of the ongoing court proceedings and parental objection.

I next heard evidence from the allocated social worker Mr RF. RF was not a strong local authority witness. That said I should recognise that RF was very clear that despite some of the other things he said in evidence, he was supportive of the local authority plan and he did not deviate from the overall welfare view that AZ’s needs are best met living with Mr and Mrs B. Nevertheless, I’m afraid RF was an unimpressive witness and didn’t seem to have a good grip of his own assessments or the bundle in general. I’m not suggesting RF was in any way dishonest but there are times when he clearly didn’t want to answer a particular question, on one occasion even responding by saying ‘no comment’ which is quite remarkable. Yet again I was left with the clear impression this was a local authority social worker who was not actively involved in the decision-making himself. In fact, it was clear from his oral evidence that RF was allocated to the case at some point in mid-May 2025 and his first meeting was the one on 14 May 2025 when he met with Mr D. Almost immediately after RF then went on holiday for three weeks. RF accepted that by the time he came back from holiday the local authority plan was a clear plan that he was then tasked with implementing. Miss Richards put it to RF that when he came back from holiday it was a ‘fait accompli’, RF agreed. Again Miss Richards put it to RF that as the allocated social worker he came back to start implementing the plan and even with his level of experience he did not know that he needed to hold fire on the transition period, RF answered by saying “no I was doing what I was told” confirming that he was told to prepare a transition plan. It was at this point that RF answered by saying no comment because Miss Richards put it to RF was the decision had already been made, and he could not do anything about it. The LA must reflect on this because if my interpretation of RF’s evidence is correct, he was an experienced social worker who was being dictated to by management and not feeling able to challenge decision making. In my judgement that is an unhealthy situation.

RF was asked about the sibling assessment that he authored and that I have already referred to above. By this point it was obvious from RF’s evidence that the plan had already been formed and that came before the sibling assessment had been prepared. RF tried to respond to that point suggesting the assessment was about the children’s interaction with the family and that it was not about them being assessed as being together. RF then rather worryingly said “him being with his siblings was not a major thing”. RF conceded this was a ‘finely balanced case’ and when it was put to him that he did not have the time needed to undertake the comprehensive sibling assessment required in this case he responded by saying ‘’possibly, if we had more time, it would be more comprehensive’.

Later in cross examination by Miss Richards it was put to RF that his analysis on the impact of sibling separation is limited and he said ‘Yes’ and then when it was put to him that there was also limited analysis on the impact on separating AZ from Mr D he said ‘no, because I did not view him as being fully separated’. The follow up questions reasonably then focused on the local authority contact plan but yet again I was left with the feeling that RF was simply telling me what the local authority plan was, rather than expressing an informed view. What I was left certain of was that RF was not able, orally in evidence at least, to outline what detailed analysis had taken place to consider the advantages and disadvantages of the differing contact options or even live with proposals. I was left wondering at this point whether the local authority failings were fatal to their plan, but they are not for the reasons I will go on to outline.

In cross-examination Mr Fraser understandably focused on the support that the local authority says is required by Mr D. Mr Fraser took RF through the support needs as set out in his statement and RF largely conceded those needs could be met with the support offered by local authority under a care order. That said RF was clear that his primary concern was the relationship between Mr D and Mother confirming that the dynamic of that relationship is a concern for the local authority.

RF was also asked about AZ’s wishes and feelings and was taken to his written evidence where he suggests significant weight should be attached to the same. In oral evidence RF resiled from that statement saying that he thinks they should be considered and conceding that significant weight should not be placed on wishes and feelings.

RF was also asked about the likely effect of change of circumstances on AZ if I agree with the local authority plan. RF told me that the local authority would have a six-month period where we could look at that, referring to the reduction of time AZ was spent with his sister C. This compounded the concern noted above.

Miss Todd asked further questions of RF but by that point it was obvious to all advocates, and to Mr and Mrs B, that his evidence was not entirely supportive of the local authority case. Nevertheless, in answer to leading questions from Miss Todd, RF was able to say that his written assessment acknowledges the need for careful consideration to contact in order to mitigate the harm AZ will suffer from a change of circumstances. RF also confirmed his view that Mr and Mrs B are extremely experienced and in a good place to manage contact. Questions then followed in support of the Guardian’s position that a special guardianship order is the right order, and RF conceded that family time could be managed by Mr and Mrs B and there was no advantage of a care order in that respect, something that was completely at odds what he had said earlier in his evidence. As far as advantages of a care order RF suggested it may elevate AZ’s status as far as CAMHS is concerned but equally conceded CAMHS can be ‘difficult to pin down’ even when a child is subject to a care order and any waiting list may outlive a care order. Other than that RF told me that the local authority wanted oversight and the decision to pursue came from meetings with managers, another area where I was left feeling those who have not filed evidence are the ones dictating the plan.

Mrs B asked some questions of RF, and he confirmed that present the local authority supervise contact twice a week between Mother and AZ. Mrs B went on to ask whether he was aware Mr D had supervised Mother at the weekend when she attended AZ’s football match. RF confirmed he did not know and that Mr D is fully aware he should not be supervising contact. It is noteworthy, in the context of what happened on 18 November 2025, that this evidence was being heard by Mother and Mr D. RF repeated his concerns about Mr D’s abilities to supervise time between Mother and AZ.

I was due to hear oral evidence from several other local authority witnesses, including team managers, the District Lead and former IRO but on the morning of day two I was told they were no longer required by any party. The late notification of that was disappointing because there had been an earlier agreement that the Guardian would not attend day two (a personal commitment I believe) and all parties agreed that the Guardian should be present for the evidence of the parents. This resulted in wasted court time on day two.

On the morning of day three I heard oral evidence from Mr D who, in my judgement was a rather impressive witness. I think he was referred to by someone, as a likeable guy, and I would agree with that because it came across in the evidence he gave and his general conduct in court throughout the hearing. Overall Mr D appeared, in the answers he gave at least, as child focused and reflective. By way of example, Mr D was asked questions about time AZ has spent with Mr and Mrs B and it was put to him that he had not pushed for the time to be reduced because he needed their support. Rather than being defensive, Mr D was able to say, without hesitation, that Mr and Mrs B have always been a big part of AZ’s life and they have always helped out. The cross examination then continued with it being put to Mr D that he is now proposing alternate weekend contact between AZ and the B’s because he ‘needs them’. Mr D faced further criticism from the local authority by way of cross examination, including it being put to him that he will struggle to care for AZ without the support Mr and Mrs B. It was plain to me that notwithstanding the way in which the local authority and the B’s put their case, Mr D still wants to maintain a relationship with Mr and Mrs B. Again, it was put to Mr D that his proposal of alternate weekends does not reflect stability for AZ, but his response was to say ‘what I was thinking is what is best for AZ… I was going off his best interests that he still has regular contact with them…. Personally, for AZ, I thought he should maintain a relationship with [Mr and Mrs B]. It seems to me that Mr D is either proposing fortnightly because he wants the ‘respite’ or because he thinks it is in AZ’s best interests. In reality it is more likely to be a combination of the two but the idea of fortnightly contact, regardless of my final decision, is not a fanciful suggestion.

M also gave her evidence on day three and it was relatively brief with limited cross examination. Mother was able to answer the questions that were put her way and she maintained her position. As expected, much of the cross examination focused on the relationship dynamic and her understanding of the role she would play if AZ remained in the care of Mr D. In examination in chief Mother confirmed that she lives a good 100m to 200m around the corner from Mr D. Mother was asked whether she ever goes round to Mr D’ house uninvited and her response was ‘no I have always asked the social worker if I have needed to go’. Miss Richards asked this question, understandably, because of the concern that had come out of the earlier oral evidence about the relationship dynamic between Mother and Mr D. Miss Richards asked this question, no doubt knowing the answer. What Miss Richards did not know, was that in between day five and closing submissions on day seven mother would be found at the family home. On the morning of day seven I was emailed a contact note confirming that the social worker visited the house for an unannounced visit describing Mr D as appearing surprised but allowing entry. The log then informs me that upon entering the lounge the social worker observed Mother, ‘standing behind the door’. Mother immediately apologised to the social worker stating she had only been in the home five minutes and was leaving. I was of course addressed on this issue in closing submissions, but it is relevant to note it here in the context of the answer Mother gave to her own counsel during examination in chief. I must not knee-jerk and place over reliance on Mother being in the house on 18 November 2025, but it must be considered in the context of the evidence given only days before and in the context of Mr D knowing that he should not have allowed Mother into the house and them both knowing their relationship dynamic was a central part of the case. I’m afraid that this incident, although giving credit to Mother and Mr D for accepting it, undermines their evidence.

Mother was asked further questions in cross examination and in answer to questions from Miss Todd, she made it clear that she does aspire in the future to coparent saying ’not now’ ‘but in the future’ ‘when I have had the baby’. In fairness to Mother, she then continued by saying she just wants her son to be happy and loved and that is where he is now.

Mrs B gave her evidence on day four. Mrs B was by far the most impressive witness I heard over the course of the final hearing (and I include the professional witnesses in that). Mrs B was quite happy to accept that AZ refers to Mr D as father and vice versa and was quite accepting, in fact supportive of that relationship (with none of the reluctance noted displayed by the social worker). Mrs B was asked questions about the transition plan, and I was left with no uncertainty that she had a conversation with the social work team, most likely Miss D, before informing AZ. Mrs B told me of her habit of checking things out with the local authority and the discussion that was had with the social work team at the time of panel, and I have no doubt Mrs B in taking the child focused decision that she needed to talk to AZ about the transition plan, did this both with the knowledge of the LA and in the belief that it was to progress. I have already mentioned what Mrs B said about contact, but I was left with no doubt in my mind, having seen Mrs B give evidence before me, that she will make decisions about contact with family members, including Mr D, with AZ’s welfare firmly in her mind. I gained the impression that Mr and Mrs B were quite happy to listen to the advice of the local authority and the Guardian and they are the kind of people that will act upon professional advice, but it seemed to me that if AZ is in their full-time care, they will be well placed to make decisions that are in AZ’s best interests.

Questions were put to Mrs B about their position regarding contact if I endorse a plan for AZ to remain with Mr D. The position remains that they believe contact on one occasion each month is right for AZ, although in evidence it seems they were prepared, at the very least to keep this under review as part of the local authority’s ongoing involvement. There is a vague suggestion that Mr and Mrs B’s position could be strategic, presumably because it has the effect of limiting the support available to Mr D. I did not form that view. Whilst I think that Mr D genuinely thinks that fortnightly contact would be best for AZ (although also helpful for respite care) I think that is where the difference between Mr D and Mr and Mrs B is apparent. Mr and Mrs B’s position is supported by professionals as being a child focused position as opposed to an adult focused position. It seems to me that Mr and Mrs B are better able to make such informed decisions because of the high level of experience and child focused approach.

In cross examination from Miss Todd, Mrs B was asked questions about her understanding of therapeutic parenting. Mrs B was able to give a comprehensive and impressive answer talking about consistency and unconditional positive encouragement. Mrs B gave an example of looking at behaviour and rather than seeing that behaviour as defiant, seeing it is looking at what the child is trying to tell her. By watching behaviour carefully and interpreting it through the lens of trauma. By saying that AZ is trying to tell them something when he is dysregulated, that he has a need that is not being met, so they look at what that need might be. Mrs B told me that it is hardwired in, referring to therapeutic parenting, it’s about learning to manage, telling me they know that from their own children.

The Guardian gave her evidence last. The Guardian’s evidence commenced on day four but ran over to day five and took far longer than envisaged as I have already mentioned. The Guardian told me in examination in chief that she has considered the two options for AZ, but in doing so she does not see it as a home placement versus a foster placement. The Guardian says that we should consider Mr and Mrs B as parents as well because with AZ’s lived experiences in their care, he has formed secure attachments and that is why he will seek safety from them. The Guardian was clear that AZ loves Mother and Mr D, but she is clear in her mind that his secure attachment is with Mr and Mrs B.

In cross examination the Guardian was asked about her visits to see AZ and to see Mr D. The Guardian could not produce a log for the visit that she says took place on 30 June 2025. The Guardian was clear in evidence by telling me that she saw him at home and had some telephone communication on the same day. On day five I was provided with a screenshot of a telephone call log for 30 June 2025 indicating telephone discussions. Nevertheless, the Guardian was still not able to produce a log of a physical visit. In evidence the Guardian says she called Mr D and he was just round the corner. In my judgement, and on the balance of probabilities, the Guardian is telling an accurate account. It seems to me the Guardian has clearly failed to document her visit on 30 June 2025, and she accepts that is a professional oversight. The Guardian’s position is supported by her own recollection that she was able to articulate in oral evidence and the call logs. In any event I don’t think anybody suggests the case turns on this issue although the line of cross examination, understandably, was suggestive that the Guardian had not undertaken sufficient enquiries as the court would expect.

I cannot ignore the fact I was troubled, at times, by the Guardian’s evidence. It was put to the Guardian that the final hearing in August 2025 was ineffective and one of the reasons was because of gaps in the evidence as noted on the face of the order. Indeed, the Guardian conceded she thought there were gaps at that hearing. Nevertheless, the Guardian was clear in her evidence that she had made her enquiries and despite the local authority’s evidence being superficial and not well presented, she felt her own analysis bridged that gap. The Guardian then went on to say that if those gaps were filled then it would bolster her position. It was put to the Guardian that she had fallen into the trap of forming a view prior to assessments being completed. The Guardian responded by telling me she had viewed everything holistically but it is not clear how that can be the case if her view had formed prior to assessments. The Guardian then went on to say that the clearest thing for her is seeing how different AZ presents in the two different placements. The Guardian was then asked, if Mr D was AZ’s biological father would she support him remaining in his care. The Guardian responded by saying that she would ‘have to’ going on to use the word ‘frustration’ in terms of the welfare checklist, saying that sometimes the parenting is good enough and that is a frustration for a Guardian, because she cannot say the child’s needs are best met by an adoption because the parents care is ‘good enough’. I was troubled by this evidence, and I did question whether the Guardian had not properly got a grip of the welfare checklist or perhaps had the tunnel vision the local authority social workers were earlier accused of.

I wonder if the Guardian had been able to reflect on her evidence overnight and had benefited from running into day five. I say that because the Guardian’s evidence was not quite as troubling as it had been the day before. In fact, the Guardian was asked whether she had spoken to her manager overnight about her evidence, but she confirmed not. That line of questioning was not pursued. The Guardian was challenged again on the visits but pointed out that it is not the role of a Guardian to undertake as many visits as a social worker and that in this case it is accepted that Mr D is trying his level best to provide good care to the children. The Guardian suggested that it was not a concern that she had not visited the children or the family home for some time because there is no dispute around the relationship and instead, she felt that visiting AZ in school is crucial. The Guardian then recounted the visit to see AZ in school and his ‘great excitement’. The Guardian said that she had to ask herself why AZ is so excited to tell her about his move to Mr and Mrs B, and that she had formed a view that AZ does not see the relationships in the same way that we do. The Guardian went on to reference the welfare checklist and said to me that it is not about leaving Mr D, whether he calls him daddy, but what we have is AZ experiencing harm - he was removed and placed with Mr and Mrs B where his care was stable and secure, then placed back with Mother and Mr D, who was presented as dad and who he labels as dad. The Guardian told me that AZ then experienced unstable care and the same harm and he was re-harmed by those same issues, the result of that is that he does not have the same attachment to Mr D, but it is a good relationship. The Guardian told me that her laser focus is on AZ.

It was put to the Guardian that her analysis fails to address what could be done to keep the siblings together. The Guardian accepted that but disagreed she was working backwards and said she was working alongside the assessments completed by the local authority. Being referred to the sibling assessments the Guardian said that the updated assessment prepared by RF was better than the previous evidence and that she thinks the social worker has done the best in the limited time. The Guardian was asked whether she accepts separation from Mr D and C will cause emotional harm to AZ. The Guardian said ‘no’ and continued by saying that he is excited to go and this will be mitigated against by them remaining as important people. The Guardian was asked whether she accepts the plan impacts on AZ’s article 8 rights, but she only accepted it did in relation to C and Mr D. As far as AZ is concerned the Guardian maintained the view that he does not view the relationship in the same way that others do and that Mr D is the connected carer, rather than parent to AZ. The Guardian did not seem to accept that AZ views Mr D as his father and vice versa.

The Guardian accepted that when she went to see AZ on 17 June 2025 she was unaware of the abandoned transition plan. Further questions were asked about the Guardian’s involvement in the transition plan and in particular how as the Guardian she was not aware of what was going on. The Guardian seemed to agree that she should have known what was going on and then referred to the emails that she had received from Mother. It transpired that Mother had been sending emails on, or around, the third or fourth of June 2025 when she had received the transition plan and questioned whether it had started. It was questioned how the Guardian did not know about the transition plan having been aborted when she met with AZ, but it seems some time passed between receiving the emails from Mother and the Guardian reviewing them. By that time the second transition plan had been made available, so the Guardian assumed Mother had got it wrong. The Guardian was criticised in cross examination that she took no action but said that there was confirmation in the email she had been copied into that the transition plan was not happening and the plan she had referred to future dates, subject to court approval. It was suggested this correspondence should be made available although nobody pursued that. It was put to the Guardian that it was not appropriate, that she had gone to see AZ, having not known anything about the aborted transition plan, and then seeking to rely on that meeting with AZ that lasted 40 minutes where it is said AZ was excited. The Guardian conceded that she could see a problem with that position.

The Guardian was later asked about where in her analysis did she deal with the separation of siblings. The Guardian was asked to take us in her report where she is addressing the impact. The Guardian referred to paragraph 34 of her report, but it was put to her that paragraph primarily addresses E. The Guardian was heavily challenged on the lack of analysis insofar as sibling separation is concerned. I think it was right to challenge the Guardian on this point and in my judgement, it is disappointing that the Guardian did not undertake a more robust written analysis that would have given the parties confidence that this issue had been properly addressed. This is particularly the case in a situation where it must have been obvious to the Guardian this was an issue the court was concerned about following the hearing before Judge Bailey in August 2025. It is not the role of the Guardian to undertake a sibling assessment, but I was surprised, in the context of this case, at the lack of visits the Guardian had undertaken. On my reading of the Guardian’s updating analysis, it is more a repeat of what was in the analysis available to Judge Bailey in August 2025. This combined with the Guardian’s lack of record-keeping is unhelpful and will not have given confidence to Mother and Mr D.

Despite what I have said above I am satisfied that the Guardian has approached the case with AZ’s welfare firmly at the forefront of her mind and I accept her evidence that AZ has been her ‘laser focus’. It may be that the Guardian could and should have addressed the welfare checklist in detail and in particular the effect of change of circumstances in more detail in her written analysis. That does not mean however that the Guardian has not considered these issues and it certainly doesn’t mean I don’t have ample evidence to undertake a welfare analysis. Regardless of what I have said about the Guardian’s evidence, it seems to me she has considered all of the evidence and has come to a firm professional opinion. My fear is that this case has been overshadowed by often valid criticism of the local authority, but from the Guardian’s perspective, despite my criticism, I am satisfied that she did indeed keep a laser focus on what is in the best interests of AZ. Despite the criticism therefore, and despite the robust and appropriate cross examination, I feel I can still rely upon her recommendation, although I am undertaking my own welfare analysis, based upon all of the evidence available to me, in order to come to a decision as to what is in the best interests of AZ. The Guardian’s evidence is part of the wide canvas of evidence that I must consider.

As indicated above there has been a lot of criticism of the local authority, and more recently the Guardian. I want to make it clear however that the decision I am being asked to make is what future care arrangements are in the best interests of AZ, having regard to the factors set out in the welfare checklist. I am left with two realistic options, and to inform my decision making I have considered the advantages and disadvantages of each of them. My role at this final hearing does not extend to a full-scale enquiry of mistakes the local authority has made as part of their looked after child process or to critique their management practices. I accept there are some criticisms that may be relevant to the welfare outcome for AZ but having heard the evidence and the arguments I have endeavoured to stand back, consider all of the evidence available to me and focus my mind on AZ.

One of the criticisms is the aborted transition plan that the local authority clearly intended to pursue, notwithstanding ongoing court proceedings and objection from Mr D and Mother. I have already determined that Mrs B will have had a conversation with the local authority team before informing AZ, but I simply do not understand how it was left to Mrs B to do that in any event. I am also struggling to understand how the local authority felt it appropriate to pursue a transition plan in the circumstances of this case, moreover, failing to inform the Guardian. I appreciate the Guardian is criticised for not keeping her ‘finger on the pulse’, but I think it’s fair to expect the local authority to consult with the Guardian, on any proposed changes to a care plan.

I’m also troubled by the social workers evidence that clearly indicates the local authority care plan was being dictated to by management as opposed to social workers on the ground. Indeed, it is obvious from the evidence of RF, that he had little or no involvement with the decision-making process, yet he was tasked with implementing the transition plan. Even more concerning was his suggestion that he felt powerless to raise issue with this. There is even a signed document with RF’s name that has to have been prepared by somebody else because it was signed on a date when he was on annual leave.

I am also troubled by the local authority approach to the sibling assessment. The evidence indicates that the local authority had already formed its opinion and recommendation, prior to the assessment having completed. It is perfectly understandable why parents will be concerned about such action and is a valid criticism to say the local authority had a tunnel vision.

There is also the fact Mr D has never been allocated a fostering social worker. This is even more puzzling when during the evidence it is clear Mr and Mrs B were allocated one.

The LA has changed position, more than once, on the order sought. The nature of litigation is that parties reflect and change positions from time to time but the way in which the LA has litigated these proceedings has resulted in Mr and Mrs B being drawn into the litigation which may have been avoided. Having said that I recognise the important role Mrs B (supported by Mr B) has played throughout this hearing.

The question I have asked myself is whether these criticisms undermine the local authority evidence to the extent that I cannot rely on that evidence or assessments. In my judgement however the right approach is to take into account the flaws in the local authority’s case but assess all the evidence available, and survey the wide canvas, and apply the welfare principles to come to a decision about what is in the best interests of AZ. I feel confident that there is sufficient evidence available to me, not only from the LA and Guardian but also Mr and Mrs B, Mother and Mr D to make an informed and child focused decision.

There are advantages for AZ if he was to remain living with Mr D. The most obvious advantage, indeed arguably the magnetic factor, is maintaining the sibling relationship between AZ and C. It is widely accepted that sibling relationships are the most enduring family relationships we will enjoy. Despite the flaws in the local authority evidence it is abundantly clear to me that AZ and C enjoy a close sibling relationship. I disagree with the Guardian, because I am firm in my mind that AZ will suffer harm upon separation from C. The question is whether that harm is outweighed by the advantages of a placement with Mr and Mrs B, together with mitigation by way of family time. There is also E to think about. E no longer lives with Mr D, but it became apparent during the final hearing that she remains an important part of that household. In fact, on one of the days I was told E was caring for AZ and C until Mr D returned home from Court. That caused some concern to the professionals, but it underlines the fact that E remains part of the family, and it will also be a loss to AZ if he moves to live with Mr and Mrs B.

The evidence is also clear that Mr D can meet AZ’s basic needs. The most up-to-date assessment is a document prepared by the social worker called ‘assessment of the child or young person’s review’. This is a document prepared as recently as 29 October 2025. The document tells me that AZ has a strong and positive bond with Mr D. The document goes on to tell me that Mr D provides consistent care and emotional support, and AZ speaks highly of him. It continues by saying their relationship is nurturing and stable with AZ maintaining meaningful connections with his siblings and extended family through planned contact. The placement is described as stable with Mr D demonstrating commitment to AZ’s welfare and being an approved foster carer with local authority support. That final section is important because if AZ was to remain in Mr D’ care it seems to be widely accepted that would be under a care order. That means that AZ would have the benefit of continued local authority involvement and oversight and the support that would come with that. Being a looked after child can often be regarded as a negative factor but it can also bring positive benefits. On this point I must also consider whether the support required by the local authority is as extensive as the papers may suggest. In cross examination the social worker could not easily articulate a high level of support being offered by the local authority, although the reality is a lot of the support is offered by Mr and Mrs B.

The written evidence indicates that Mr D can work with the local authority and this is an advantage for AZ if he was to remain under a care order. The recent incident where Mother was found at Mr D’ home goes some way to undermine this but I must assess the evidence as a whole. The evidence also indicates that Mr D is willing to engage with recommended work and would strive to continue having a positive relationship with Mr and Mrs B.

I must also acknowledge the relationship between Mr D and AZ. Although the Guardian did not seem able to accept this, the evidence of Mrs B is that Mr D is AZ’s father in AZ’s eyes, and AZ is Mr D’ son in Mr D’ eyes. Mr D has cared for AZ since May 2022 and has continued to care for AZ without the support of Mother since January 2025. I must of course consider this in the context of AZ having spent every weekend with Mr and Mrs B for most of this year, and as far as the Guardian is concerned this is a shared care arrangement.

AZ would also maintain more regular contact with Mother. Currently AZ sees Mother on two occasions each week supervised by the local authority together with additional time when AZ is playing football. It is reasonable to assume that if AZ remains in Mr D’ care contact with Mother is likely to be more frequent than it would be if AZ was in the care of Mr and Mrs B.

There are disadvantages for AZ remaining in the care of Mr D. I have already referenced a care order as an advantage for AZ, but it comes with disadvantages also. It is accepted that if AZ is to remain with Mr D, the care order would need to remain. This would mean AZ will remain a looked after child and remain subject to statutory intervention. This is both intrusive and brings with it a level of uncertainty. I reference uncertainty because AZ is still very young at six years old and one would like to assume that even if I was to approve the continued placement of AZ with Mr D the care order would not be appropriate as a long-term option. I say that with some hesitation, because in certain circumstances it may be appropriate for a child to be subject to a care order for their entire minority, but for a child of six years it must be questioned whether such a care plan is in their welfare interests, when the other realistic option would result in no statutory involvement.

The other disadvantage of placement with Mr D is the continued risk posed by Mother, and particularly the relationship dynamic. I have taken some time to set out the factors that led to local authority involvement because it demonstrates the significant risk issues, and harm that AZ has suffered. AZ has been involved in child protection proceedings in one way or another for almost his entire life. It appears to be accepted that Mr D was a protective factor that led to AZ returning to Mother’s care, but notwithstanding that AZ has still been exposed to further harm and the risk remains. The main risk is emotional harm as a result of AZ being exposed to either domestic abuse or what has been termed ‘parental family conflict’. I must consider how likely that risk is to arise and in my judgement the risk of that is high. We know of the conflict at the contact in August 2025 but that must be considered in the context of AZ’s life experiences thus far and what he has been exposed to. We then have the ‘incident’ on the 18 November 2025. I refer to it as an incident, but I accept there is no evidence to suggest AZ came to any harm or there was any parental conflict. The question I’m asking myself at the moment however is how likely the harm is to arise. 18 November 2025 is relevant because quite frankly it is staggering that between conclusion of all evidence and final submissions Mother was found at Mr D’ house. Whatever the criticism of the local authority for a lack of clear working agreements, it is obvious that both Mother and Mr D knew Mother should not have been at the house nor even present at the dentist. I have no understanding why Mr D was not proactive as a local authority approved foster carer in trying to resolve any dentistry issues, if indeed there were any because of him not having parental responsibility. I must consider 18 November 2025 alongside the recent occasion when Mr D agreed for Mother to attend AZ’s football match. Both of these very recent incidents undermine Mr D and Mother’s ability to abide by agreements, and I have referred to the threshold in the previous proceedings already in this judgement and that is relevant because of the reference to mother failing to abide by working agreements previously. As far as the consequences for AZ, again it seems to me I must consider that in the context of the circumstances of this case. AZ is a child who has experienced harm and who is at an age where he must be protected from further harm. The Guardian and the local authority both say that AZ’s behaviours are indicative of trauma, and it seems to me they are perfectly entitled to give that opinion both as a social worker working for the local authority and as a children’s Guardian. The consequences of AZ being exposed to further parental family conflict are that he will experience yet further harm which will compound the trauma that he has already suffered. I must consider what measures could be taken to reduce or manage the risk. The obvious measure is a working agreement but to put it frankly, that is not worth the paper it is written on if the parents do not adhere to it. Sadly, I can have little confidence that Mr D and Mother will adhere, their recent actions undermine the oral evidence they gave on this point. As far as of the welfare considerations it seems to me that is highly relevant as AZ is a child who has been subject to statutory involvement for many years, a child who has suffered harm and a child who requires a stable and secure placement that can meet his every need.

A further disadvantage of continued placement with Mr D is that whilst he may have met fostering standards, those standards are only met with support. Mr D can provide good enough care to a child but the question I must ask, is what is in AZ’s welfare interests. It seems to me obvious that it is a disadvantage to AZ to remain with a carer who is able to meet a child’s basic needs, when an alternative other realistic placement is able to offer a higher level of care that better meets AZ’s individual needs.

It also appears to be a disadvantage that AZ is likely to experience further disruption as a result of Mother’s desire and aspiration to resume care, or at the very least heavily involved in his life. I do not criticise Mother for this because it is perfectly understandable but having regard to the complex dynamic between Mother and Mr D and having had the benefit of seeing Mother give her evidence I’m concerned that this may cause further conflict and be unsettling for AZ.

There are advantages to AZ being placed with Mr and Mrs B under a special guardianship order. Mr and Mrs B are viewed as ‘family’ as far as AZ is concerned. Mr and Mrs B are highly committed to AZ, even Mother and Mr D are not questioning their motivation. Mr and Mrs B love AZ dearly and it is clear AZ has a bond with them.

The opinion of the local authority and the Guardian is that Mr and Mrs B can offer AZ a higher level of parenting that better meets his individual needs. Mr and Mrs B have extensive experience of successfully parenting children with complex needs and extensive training and experience as foster carers and parents. Indeed, Mr and Mrs B have a proven track record not only in relation to their own children but also in relation to AZ.

I am satisfied that Mr and Mrs B will promote a relationship between AZ and his family if placed in their care and therefore that is an advantage. I recognise the level of time that AZ will spend with Mr D, Mother, C and E will reduce but I have confidence, as does the local authority and the Guardian, that Mr and Mrs B will offer a level of time that is in the best interests of AZ. I have already made it clear that I accept AZ will suffer harm being separated from C, but this will be mitigated by the high level of understanding Mr and Mrs B have of the importance of AZ maintaining a relationship with his family. I have no doubt, having seen Mrs B give evidence and conduct herself through this final hearing, that Mr and Mrs B will ensure the sibling relationship and wider family relationship is maintained.

Having heard the evidence and considered what is available to me in the bundle I am also satisfied that an advantage of living with Mr and Mrs B is that they will be better able to promote AZ’s education and his emotional needs. The unchallenged assessment of Mr and Mrs B is clear regarding their skills and I was left with confidence about this after hearing Mrs B give her evidence. I also have no doubt that Mr and Mrs B will be focused advocates on behalf of AZ.

AZ will also maintain a positive and meaningful relationship with Mr and Mrs B’s children. Those young adults are not AZ’s biological siblings, but it appears uncontentious that he has a relationship with them and again will go some way to mitigate the loss of living in a separate house to C.

AZ would also be free from statutory involvement because if I make a special guardianship order the current care order will be discharged. In addition to this Mr and Mrs B will acquire parental responsibility and will be able to exercise their parental responsibility to the exclusion of Mother. The special guardianship order will last until AZ is 18 years old and will have the effect of ensuring a level of certainty and permanence that has alluded AZ thus far. Whilst free of statutory interference Mr and Mrs B will have access to support pursuant to the support plan and services offered pursuant to the Special Guardianship Regulations.

There are disadvantages of AZ being placed with Mr and Mrs B and to some extent they mirror the advantages of being in Mr D’s care. I have already addressed the issue of separation from C and Mr D who I accept he has a loving bond with. Mr and Mrs B are not biologically related to AZ and he may experience difficulties with his identity when he grows and understanding how he is part of their family. This is likely to be mitigated by the therapeutic and skilled parenting that Mr and Mrs B can offer, together with AZ being a legal part of the family under a special guardianship order and life story work.

I must consider AZ’s ascertainable wishes and feelings (considered in light of his age and understanding). There has been many questions put to witnesses during this final hearing about wishes and feelings, but I must keep in mind that AZ is just six years old. His wishes and feelings have been explored by social workers, the Guardian and an independent advocate (who I have already commented on). At times AZ has expressed a desire to live with Mr and Mrs B, he has said “I want to live with them, but I still want to see my dad”. He has talked about a plan of weekend contact with Mr D and ongoing contact with Mother, E and C. The Guardian says that his wishes and feelings can be interpreted not only from words, but from actions, and how he presents himself. For example, the Guardian places reliance on her meeting with AZ at school and there is some criticism of that because at that time AZ had only recently been told that the transition plan was not progressing, something that the Guardian did not know of. In that meeting the Guardian describes AZ being ‘excited’, describing living with the Bs a good thing. I think the Guardian is perfectly entitled to place reliance on how she perceives AZ’s wishes and feelings during this meeting and through his actions and behaviours. That said I do not place any great weight on AZ’s reaction at that meeting alone between the Guardian and AZ. In my judgement, having regard to the wider evidence available to me, and the witnesses that I have heard from, AZ loves both Mr D and Mr and Mrs B and wants to remain part of both families and it obvious that his wishes and feelings have fluctuated over time. I have little doubt that the aborted transition plan will have had a negative impact and the way in which the LA went about that not only caused him harm but is likely to have distorted his wishes and feelings. At six years old he will want to be kept safe, be looked after, be part of a loving family that involves Mrs and Mrs B, Mr D, Mother, C and E but also be free from conflict and feel secure. The social worker was wrong to suggest that significant weight should be attached to AZ’s wishes and feelings. At 6 years old AZ should be able to rely on those around him to make decisions that are in his best interests, and that now falls to the court to decide in accordance with what I have been able to ascertain regarding his wishes and feelings and the remaining relevant welfare checklist factors bearing in mind his welfare is paramount.

I must consider AZ’s physical emotional and educational needs. Physically AZ has typical needs. The evidence indicates the more relevant needs are emotional. I have taken the time to set out the assessments undertaken in these proceedings because they identify AZ’s emotional needs that arise from the trauma and instability he has been subject to. AZ is behind his peers educationally and in meeting his expected educational milestones. He struggles to concentrate at times and can struggle with his social relationships. AZ needs carers who can ensure his educational needs are met, not only to a good enough level but to support him given his challenges and his needs. He needs carers who will support any future assessment for ADHD and /or ASD but not only that, carers who will be skilled in meeting the challenges that will flow from that (whatever the outcome), but at this stage, the evidence is clear in my judgement that AZ requires carers who can meet his emotional needs as a result of the trauma that he has suffered. Following on from this AZ has needs in relation to his emotional regulation, requiring consistent, structured and trauma informed care. AZ has a need to ensure his health is positively promoted. There is disagreement as to whether AZ requires ‘better than good enough parenting’. In my judgement that is the wrong phrase to use. What AZ needs is parenting that meets his own individual needs. AZ also needs a safe and secure home, a secure base, where his individual needs can be consistently met. Mrs B gave eloquent evidence regarding therapeutic parenting, and having regard to the written evidence, and the oral evidence, I am driven to the conclusion that it is right to describe AZ as requiring therapeutic parenting. Indeed, Mr D appeared to accept that in his own evidence.

I must consider the likely effect on AZ of any change in his circumstances. The position advanced on behalf of the local authority and the Guardian is that since January of this year there has been a shared care arrangement in place. Until quite recently AZ has spent many months by enjoying time with Mr and Mrs B for a full weekend, each week. In addition to this I know that AZ spent October half term with Mr and Mrs B. This must be considered in the context of AZ having previously lived with Mr and Mrs B as foster carers. The evidence indicates that AZ considers the home of Mr and Mrs B to be his home and the evidence supports that because it is clear AZ is comfortable and well established in their home. Mr and Mrs B say that it would not be a case of AZ ‘moving in’ because he already lives there. This is supported by the professional evidence available. AZ maintained a relationship with Mr and Mrs B even after the time he returned to Mother’s care, albeit he wasn’t spending time with them, at the level he has been in 2025. It was only in October 2025 that Mr D requested the time AZ spends with Mr and Mrs B be reduced to once per fortnight. That arrangement has been in place for a very short period. There appears to be disagreement as to whether the local authority implemented the arrangements or not, but in my judgement that is not a factor that should trouble my decision making. The reality of the situation is that this is not a case where a child will be removed from a family home and placed with foster carers. This is a case where I am being asked to endorse a care plan that shifts the arrangements from a shared care arrangement between two placements that AZ regards as his home to a ‘live with’ arrangement to the home that can better meet his individual needs while still spending time in the other home. I do not however minimise the impact on separation from C and it seems to me that this issue, together with the bond he has with Mr D is the most significant factor to consider. Mr D and Mother criticise the LA and the Guardian for not addressing this point robustly enough and I have some sympathy with that argument because it is not as clear as it should be from the written evidence. It is obvious that a change in circumstance, if I approve the local authority plan and place AZ with Mr and Mrs B, includes that he will spend much less time with C, or put another way he will go from a shared living arrangement to a spend time with arrangement. That said the change of circumstance will be mitigated. It seems to me that C and AZ must be well used to spending time apart from each other because of the embedded arrangements that have involved Mr and Mrs B. C will have seen AZ go off to spend time with Mr and Mrs B and AZ is now well used to spending time with Mr and Mrs B to the exclusion of C. Indeed, until very recently and for a good period of time AZ was leaving the house most weekends (I know C joined him sometimes) and midweek AZ was going to school. Therefore, whilst not minimising the impact on the sibling of not living together and growing up as a family unit I must put that in the context of the arrangements that have now been in place for some time, what the siblings are used to but moreover Mr and Mrs B’s commitment, that I accept (and hasn’t been challenged) is genuine, toward sibling contact. The point has also been made that until the arrangements were recently changed to fortnightly it was Mr and Mrs B who were providing more care for AZ because during the mid-week he was attending school. I can see the force in that argument, but I also take into account, and I must give Mr D credit for this, that getting children up in a morning and to school on time and then dealing with the evening routine, is not always easy. It seems to me the more relevant issue here is that the time AZ and C were ‘together’ at home was and remains quite limited. As indicated above I also consider the strong relationship between Mr D and AZ and the likely effect on AZ of the circumstances changing as proposed by the local authority. Whilst the LA and the Guardian have been criticised for not addressing this in more detail, the evidence is very clear about AZ’s bond with Mr D and, despite what I have said about the current arrangements the proposed change will have an effect on AZ and I have also referred to that elsewhere in this judgment. There is also the change insofar as E is concerned and the change in arrangements for contact between AZ and Mother if I endorse the proposed plan. I also bear in mind that the local authority and the Guardian refer to the losses for AZ been turned into positives and it seems to me there can be some optimism that that is possible in this case because of the skilled parenting and commitment that comes from Mr and Mrs B.

If I agree to the plan proposed by the LA, this will also see a reduction in the time that AZ spends with Mother. Mother opposes such a reduction. Such a change of circumstances will have an impact on AZ, who at present, sees his mother on three occasions each week (or presumably four last week when the parents unilaterally arranged to meet on the 18 November 2025). The impact can be mitigated against by the skilled parenting offered by Mr and Mrs B and their positive attitude towards contact.

AZ will also move school if placed with Mr and Mrs B. This will represent a change to his circumstances. The report from school highlights that a change in school will result in AZ facing several challenges, both academically and emotionally. The Headteacher raises concern about a change in the school disrupting his learning progress although the Headteacher does then go on to say that if he did move school, he could establish new positive relationships that could benefit him socially and emotionally. I also note the Headteacher says ‘…AZ is a child who enjoys school and has the potential to thrive with continued support and guidance’. I therefore recognise that changing schools for any child of AZ’s age will represent a challenge but even more so having regard to his needs. In my judgement a change will result in short-term disruption, but this will only be short-term. In my judgement, AZ would cope with a change of school with the right level of support and guidance around him and I have every confidence in Mr and Mrs B in that regard and I have already commented about their ability to advocate on his behalf. Having read the evidence and heard from Mrs B in oral evidence I have no doubt that every decision they make will put AZ at the forefront of it and that will include the change of school. The impact of moving school can therefore be mitigated by the skilled parenting that can be offered by the B’s, who I know will seek and listen to advice from professionals and manage the transition in a way that will not only mitigate the harm but also give AZ that opportunity to thrive.

AZ’s age, sex, background and characteristics must be considered.

AZ’s age is relevant at just 6 years old. AZ has lived almost his entire life subject to child protection procedures and public law orders. At his very young age AZ has already experienced multiple moves and instability, including during these proceedings that have taken far too long to conclude. AZ has a life experience of domestic abuse and trauma that is relevant to my decision making. It is also argued that the only stable period for AZ was when he lived with Mr and Mrs B and other than continuing to be subject to a care order, that is correct in my judgement and their involvement in AZ’s life is a central part of his background.

AZ has suffered harm through exposure to domestic abuse and parental conflict not only during the relationship (and since) between Mother and Mr D but also between Mother and her previous partner. The parental conflict has continued post separation and the incident in August 2025 is documented. I am asked to put that in context, but it seems to me that part of that context is the harm that AZ has previously been exposed to that now leads to him requiring trauma informed therapeutic parenting. There is a risk of further harm, and I have addressed this elsewhere in the judgement. In summary, there is a risk that AZ will be exposed to further parental conflict if in the care of Mr D. Further risk factors include Mother’s chaotic lifestyle, and whilst there may currently be a period of stability, the evidence suggest this may not be maintained. Moreover, the parents (and the children) will experience stressful events, and they imminently include the arrival of Mother’s child and the terminal illness of maternal grandmother. Such stress factors are only likely to destabilise what is already a concerning family/relationship dynamic. AZ’s needs will also evolve over time, whether that being related to his past trauma or any neurodivergence and with Mr D that brings with the risk of not only the placement becoming destabilised but also the risk of further conflict between Mr D and Mother. In my judgement the risk of this if placed with Mr and Mrs B is significantly reduced and low. They are proven carers with no concerns about domestic abuse, and they can protect AZ from external risk factors.

I have given great care to think about how capable Mr D and Mr and Mrs B are of meeting his needs. I have not excluded Mother from this factor, but she sensibly does not pursue a positive case of seeking to care for AZ. That said Mother remains an important part of the dynamic, both in terms of her role and the risk if AZ is placed with Mr D but also the importance of a continuing relationship regardless of the placement. I have addressed the different realistic placements already, so I do not intend to repeat relevant points here because although I am now working through the relevant checklist factors in turn, I have had them in mind throughout.

It is agreed that Mr D has been approved as a LA kinship foster carer and the unchallenged assessment is within the bundle. Nevertheless, in my judgement, it is simply wrong to compare a placement with Mr D and a placement with Mr and Mrs B like for like simply because they are both ‘approved’. What I have done is consider the unchallenged assessment of each of them and then undertake an holistic analysis in the context of the wider evidence, including the oral evidence I have heard. It is clear to me that despite the positive foster care assessment concerns still exist about the sustainability of Mr D’s care of AZ, without ongoing support (and I include the support currently offered by Mr and Mrs B in that). I recognise the social worker did not outline an extensive package of support that is place but I equally recognise that until recently AZ was spending each weekend with Mr and Mrs B. In addition to that Mr D has the support of the social care team but more troublingly he chose not to exercise his access to that support on 18 November 2025 when he allowed Mother to attend the dentist with the children and then return to the family home. This incident, together with others such as August 2025 and the recent attendance at football only compounds the other concern, that being ‘blurred boundaries’ with Mother. The other area of concern is whether Mr D has a real understanding of (or ability to implement) the need for therapeutic parenting, or parenting that meets AZ’s needs as opposed to ‘just good enough’. Mr D is willing to attend courses and work with the LA, but I question whether this alone is enough in the context of AZ’s age and his needs. I must also consider Mr D in the context of him having demonstrated commitment, engagement with assessments and the positive bond with AZ but then there has also been times when Mr D has questioned the placement himself and there is some evidence of him, arguably understandably, prioritising C.

Mr and Mrs B are highly skilled and highly experienced carers. They have specialist training in trauma informed parenting. Mrs B was able to articulate what she understands therapeutic parenting in a way that came natural to her. Not only have Mr and Mrs B received the training, but they have been able to put that training into practice. The evidence is clear, Mr and Mrs B are highly capable of meeting AZ’s individual needs.

There is also a question about Mr D’s ability to manage family time with Mother, and this is an important part of parenting. RF was not confident Mr D can manage contact with Mother, and I share that lack of optimism. Having seen Mother give her evidence and see her during the final hearing I worry about the relationship dynamic just as professionals do and just as the evidence indicates. I make it clear that I have not had the ‘knee-jerk reaction’ Mr Fraser was concerned about when addressing me on Mother being at the home on 18 November 2025, but what happened on 18 November only seems to demonstrate an obvious lack of capability on the part of Mr D.

Mr Fraser sought to remind me of the well-rehearsed words of Hedley J when he said, ‘society must be willing to tolerate very diverse standards of parenting, including eccentric, the barely adequate and the inconsistent… it is not the provenance of the state to spare children all the consequences of defective parenting’. I understand why Mr Fraser raises this, but I am dealing with a situation where I am considering the realistic options of a family and/or kinship placement and not permanent removal from the family by way of adoption. What I am faced with is a situation where there are two realistic options for AZ with people with whom he is familiar and regard as family, and I must consider those options with paramount consideration being on AZ’s welfare. I must of course assess this proportionately but Mr and Mrs B are not strangers or unknown local authority foster carers, they are carers who are already part of AZ’s life, carers who AZ regards as family and carers who have already been given leave by this court to apply for a special guardianship order and who both the local authority and the Guardian agree can care for AZ without the need for statutory involvement.

The Range of powers available to the court are that I could make no further order meaning that AZ would continue to be subject to a care order. I could also discharge the care order by making a private law order. I am asked to make a Special Guardianship Order in favour of Mr and Mrs B pursuant to Section 14(1) of the Children Act 1989 and that would have the effect of discharging the care order. The court has various other powers available such as substituting the care order with a supervision order or even a supervision order alongside a special guardianship order, although there would need to be cogent reasons for that.

The LA accept that if I prefer the realistic option of AZ remaining with Mr D then the appropriate order is no further order on the basis AZ would remain subject to a care order and placed with Mr D as a kinship foster carer. This approach is accepted by Mr D who invites me to refuse the application for a special guardianship order and direct an amended care plan.

If I make a special guardianship order I am asked to make a spend time with order in favour of Mother and Mr D. Regardless, I must consider this issue pursuant to section 14B of the Children Act 1989.

Pulling all this together I am satisfied that AZ’s welfare needs will be better met by living with Mr and Mrs B under a Special Guardianship Order. While I acknowledge the harm that may arise from separation from C and the bond AZ shares with Mr D, these disadvantages are outweighed by the advantages of a placement that offers permanence, stability, and parenting that better meets AZ’s individual needs. Mr and Mrs B can provide the trauma-informed, therapeutic care, which AZ requires given his history of instability and exposure to harm. They can also promote his educational progress and emotional regulation that meets his individual needs. Mr and Mrs B are not going into this blind, they are not LA long-term fosters cares or even potential adopters who may be oblivious or naive to the likely challenges that may come their way, they are committed carers who have the best skill set to allow AZ to achieve his potential and meet his individual needs.

This placement removes AZ from the ongoing risks associated with parental conflict and the blurred boundaries evident in Mr D’ care. It ensures that AZ will no longer be a looked-after child subject to statutory intervention, giving him the security of a permanent family environment. I am confident based on the evidence that Mr and Mrs B will maintain and nurture AZ’s relationships with his siblings, Mother and Mr D, mitigating the impact of separation. The making of a special guardianship order meets his welfare needs both now and in the long term and is a proportionate order in the circumstances. I should add that I have kept in mind the Article 8 rights of all involved and primarily AZs. AZ does have a right to a family life, and my decision will maintain that right, balanced against what is in his best interests, because he will be living with his special guardians who he regards as family and maintain a relationship with his biological family (and Mr D).

I have considered whether I should make child arrangement order containing contact provisions in accordance with section 14B(1)(a) of the Children Act 1989. Having regard to AZ’s welfare interests and the checklist factors I have come to the clear conclusion that no such order is necessary. This is not because I do not think AZ should continue to have a relationship with Mother, Mr D, C, E and wider family members and I hope that point is clear from this judgement. Section 1(5) of the Children Act 1989 provides that no order should be made unless it would be in the best interests of the child to make one. Any order must also be proportionate. It is simply not necessary, nor proportionate for me to make a spend time with child arrangement order and it is not therefore be in his best interests. I have come to this clear conclusion having heard the evidence of Mrs B and being entirely satisfied that they will promote a relationship between AZ and his family. Having already commented on the evidence in this case I have no doubt that the two people who can be relied upon to make child focused informed decisions about AZ are Mr and Mrs B. When asked questions in cross examination Mrs B referred to the number of different positions that had come from the local authority on contact and said ‘it is not a static position from the LA and it has been hard to manage… also when we asked for a recommendation on contact we were just told they would make recommendations and we were not copied into that, which is surprising when we would be the ones putting it into place’. Mrs B then continued and said ‘our number one point is that AZ seeing his family members is central…’. When asked further questions in cross examination Mrs B agreed that the evidence from RF gives reason for reflection and said ‘definitely, and also that is why we are regarding what is written down as minimum arrangements… if AZ was not coping, didn't feel permanent, was struggling, then that is what we would look at… otherwise… we would be phoning up and meeting up at the park… that is how we can manage it…’. Mrs B clarified her understanding of the proposals, that she agrees and is committed to as a minimum, including one weekend with Mr D and C, one weekend seeing C and E (and perhaps Mr D) and another weekend with Mother. Mrs B also reminded me that in addition to that AZ will see his grandparents. Mrs B was also asked about Mr D’ wish to acquire PR for AZ and Mrs B acknowledged that but said ‘all I can say we hold Mr D in such positive regard… we have a real soft spot for Mr D, he is such a lovely decent man in my view and we would not seek to undermine the relationship… it is important for AZ and for us… this has never been about taking AZ from Mr D… we did not want to do that… Mr D’s relationship with AZ, and C as well, is really really important…’.

In cross examination from Miss Richards, Mrs B agreed they would allow Mother and Mr D to attend school events and her ‘yes’ answer came without any hesitation and was genuine. As far as contact with Mother is concerned Mrs B said ‘AZ loves Mother and AZ benefits from having Mother in his life for sure… the sad thing is there is inconsistency and sadly that has harmed AZ over the years and it is really important that he is clear who his care givers are and the role each person plays in his life… hopefully the contact that Mother has will not be supervised and that will be great… we have to consider how onerous over time for AZ… this is about minimum arrangements and as special guardians we will exercise PR in his best interests…’. It was put to Mrs B that Mother disagrees about what is in AZ’s best interests because in Mother’s view the contact should not be reduced to the proposed level and Mrs B responded by saying ‘I understand that but she also finds if difficult to understand how she posed a risk of harm to them in the past.’. Mrs B went on to express her concerns about Mother’s consistency over time, albeit accepting commitment in the last 9 months.

I was left with absolutely no doubt about Mr and Mrs B’s priority - AZ. Their position on contact is they view the current recommendation as a minimum and there will be a need for flexibility as AZ grows and his needs change over time. The proposals do represent a change in circumstances for AZ, and I recognise AZ’s wishes and feelings are not reflective of the proposals but in my judgement, they are recommendations that strike the right balance and proposals that I endorse. AZ will continue to spend meaningful time with Mr D and C yet still enable AZ to see Mother and wider family members. Moreover, the proposals will also allow AZ to time and the chance to properly understand that living with Mr and Mrs B is his secure base, his home. I have considered whether a higher frequency of time with Mr D and C, perhaps once a fortnight would in AZ’s best interests and I asked questions about during the hearing. Having now reflected on the evidence I have formed the clear view that is not the right level for AZ at this time and would represent too much disruption alongside the other important family members, including Mother. It would also frustrate AZ in being able to understand that his home with Mr and Mrs B is his permanent home. The time AZ will spend with Mother will be far less than it is now and I know she will be disappointed about that because I know how much she loves him. I have considered whether a higher level of contact would be better for AZ, but it would bring with it further disruption for him and as Mrs B said, it is likely to be onerous in addition to the other family time he needs to enjoy. I know Mother and Mr D will be disappointed by my decision and will disagree with my conclusions, but I also know how much they regard Mr and Mrs B and how much they love AZ. I therefore hope they can support the placement because it will now be AZ’s long-term placement and it will be in his best interests if he is given the message that those who he loves most agree the plan. AZ may not appreciate this at the moment but he is a very lucky boy to have so many people who love him in the way they do.

It will be abundantly clear that I have faith in Mr and Mrs B to make decisions that are in the best interests of AZ. It is on that basis I have no hesitation in determining that making a spend time with order would not be better for AZ. I also have no hesitation in approving the arrangements proposed in the special guardianship support plan but will remain under review and will no doubt change over time in a way that Mr and Mrs B determine are in the best interests of AZ. In my judgement Mr and Mrs B do not need the LA, nor even the court, to dictate the arrangements that they are clearly committed to.

I recognise that by refusing to make a spend time with child arrangement order I am not able to make an order giving Mr D parental responsibility for the time that he will spend with AZ (section 12 Children Act 1989). Mr D does not need parental responsibility for AZ. Mr D may feel that is a harsh determination having regard to his commitment to AZ, but Mr and Mrs B will have a special guardianship order and can therefore, in any event, exercise their parental responsibility to the exclusion of any other person with parental responsibility. I recognise AZ will be spending time with Mr D but he does not require PR for that purpose and I have no hesitation in determining that Mr and Mrs B are the kind of people who will take their responsibility serious and will be in a position to address any urgent issues that may, or may not arise during such time. There is arguably a benefit to AZ from a life story perspective but again, it is not necessary. I heard how much Mr and Mrs B regard Mr D and I am satisfied they will promote the relationship. In any event the ability to grant parental responsibility is limited to the time that AZ would spending with Mr D and I have already determined that a child arrangement order is not in the best interests of AZ.

I make a Special Guardianship Order in favour of Mr and Mrs B knowing such an order has the effect of discharging the care order.

I dismiss the applications made by Mr D.

I now invite the local authority, in consultation with the Guardian, Mr D and Mother, to agree, without delay, a transition of AZ to the care of Mr and Mrs B. I am hopeful the parties can agree the transition of care because I know how much they all love AZ. If agreement cannot be reached, I will list a short hearing in short order.