AB, Re

The child at the centre of this case is AB, who is aged 6. He has been represented at this hearing through his Children’s Guardian, by Greg Davies of Counsel. AB’s mother has been represented by Kachi Odidika of Counsel. AB’s father has been represented by Mary Hughes of Counsel. The application is brought by the London Borough of Hackney and is dated 22 March 2024, applying for an interim supervision order, a care order and a child arrangements order. The London Borough of Hackney has been represented by Alistair Miles Martey of Counsel.

The mother and father are married. They have three children together. Their oldest son, BC, is 19 and is at university. Their middle child is DE. She was subject to these proceedings at the start but the court discharged her as a party with no orders made just a few days before her 17^th birthday. DE is living with the father and is at sixth form college. The subject child, AB, is the third and youngest of the parties’ children. He currently lives with his father.

The background as set out in the Local Authority’s documents is that the parties lived together and coparented the children for a long time. It was a traditional arrangement with the father going out to work and the mother being the home-maker and looking after the children. The family has been known to social services since 2009, due to concerns about non-school attendance and concerns about the mother’s mental health. In November 2021 the mother’s mental health deteriorated and her neighbour contacted the Local Authority as the mother would not allow them to call the emergency services. Police attended with the London Ambulance Service and noted that the mother presented with paranoid and delusional thoughts and said that she and her children were being followed by cars and planes and that people were out to kill her and the children. She had kept the children off school due to concerns that they were being followed. The mother was referred to the neighbourhood Community Mental Health Team (CMHT). The Local Authority put the children on Child in Need plans.

The mother stopped taking her medication, and her mental health deteriorated further. On 3 February 2022 she was detained under s2 of the Mental Health Act and spent 28 days in hospital. She was diagnosed with Unspecified Non-Organic Psychosis and placed on antipsychotic medication. There followed an improvement, but by September 2022 she was again non-compliant with her medication and had disengaged from services. The children’s school attendance was badly affected.

On 9 June 2023 the mother was arrested after allegedly attacking the father in an argument about her wanting to see his phone. She spent the night in custody and was released the following day. On 23 June 2023 there was a second mental health assessment. She was assessed as suffering from psychosis and was detained under s2 and then s3 of the Mental Health Act. On 22 July 2023 she was seen by hospital staff to slap the father several times and to shout at him. She remained in hospital for about a year.

During that year she began to comply with her medication and she made good progress. She was discharged into supported accommodation on 3 June 2024, and has been there ever since. She is reported by the accommodation manager to be managing extremely well, and to be an exemplary resident.

All the time that the mother was in hospital and whilst she has been in supported accommodation AB and DE have lived with their father. They live in a property in Hackney, the tenancy of which is in the mother’s sole name. The paternal grandparents came from Africa to support the father in caring for the children and they are currently living there, sleeping on a blow-up bed in the living room. They are said to be keen to get home to Africa. The mother’s sister, whom I will refer to as the maternal aunt, has also been living in the property to the obvious irritation of the father. There is a dispute about whether she helps with the children and helps in the home.

The mother is currently compliant with her medication and she presents as mentally well and stable. In October 2024 she was assessed as being able to live independently in the community but she has remained in the supported accommodation because of a stalemate in relation to her housing. I will return to that stalemate later. In the meanwhile, the mother is enjoying contact with DE whenever she and DE wish it, and DE spent a few nights with her at her accommodation over the Christmas period last year. AB has contact with his mother on Tuesdays for two hours and Saturdays for three hours, supervised by the maternal aunt and, occasionally, by a contact support worker. It is said to be a positive experience for AB. In addition there have been some ad hoc contacts, as for example when BC came home from university and supervised a contact for all three of the children to spend time with their mother together, shopping and going out for lunch.

The parents’ relationship with each other is currently cordial. The father has a dream that one day they might reconcile and share the care of the children together as they did in the past. The mother is more cautious but she clearly leans on the father and talks to him a great deal on the phone. There is a great deal of shared history between them and it is clear their relationship is deep and real, albeit that they are not together at the moment.

On 28 March 2024, when the mother was still in hospital and the father was looking after the children with the help of his parents, the court made an Interim Supervision Order in relation to AB, together with an Interim Child Arrangements Order for him to live with his father and an Occupation Order preventing the mother from returning to the family home. This was in response the possibility of the mother being discharged from hospital and its being unclear where she would go. Those orders all currently remain in place.

On the same date the court also made a Non-Molestation Order to protect the father from the mother, but that Order was discharged on 11 October 2024 because it was no longer considered to be necessary. By that time the mother was living in supported accommodation, was compliant with her medication and was doing well.

The Local Authority’s care plan is for AB to be returned to the care of his mother forthwith (i.e. the day after the order is made) and for her to return to the family home to care for him there, with the father and paternal grandparents moving out. If they refuse to move out, the Local Authority concede that the mother can move back with them all still there. They seek a lives with order to the mother and a Supervision Order for 12 months to underpin it. The mother supports this plan. Both the mother and the Local Authority seek the discharge of the Occupation Order.

The father seeks a lives with order for AB to live with him, underpinned by a 12 month Supervision Order, and hopes for gradual increased contact to the mother such that one day she may be able to have shared care or even move back in and resume co-parenting with him. The Guardian supports the making of a lives with order to the father with a 12 month Supervision Order and proposes a plan for the mother’s progress in the community to be monitored to see whether contact can gradually increase. She sees the mother playing a significant role in AB’s upbringing. Both the father and the Guardian consider it necessary to delay the finalisation of the Supervision Order until the Local Authority file a support plan for the whole family. They both seek the continuation of the occupation order for 6 months.

I have conducted a five day final hearing in this matter. I had the benefit of a bundle and in addition the Guardian’s final analysis, the father’s seventh statement and an updating report from Dr George, none of which were in the bundle. I heard oral evidence from

I also heard submissions from all the parties. I am handing down this written judgment at the end of the fifth day.

It is alleged that the father is a victim of domestic abuse and so I have considered PD3AA to consider whether special measures were required to assist him participate effectively in proceedings. The mother’s mental health is currently stable and she is not threatening or dysregulated at present. The parents’ relationship is, as I have said, cordial. They are in frequent communication and the father is hopeful of reconciliation with the mother, although the mother is more cautious. It did not seem to me that special measures were required.

A court cannot make a public law order unless the circumstances at the relevant date are as set out in s31(2) Children Act 1989. If they are then the threshold for making public law orders is crossed.

In respect of threshold and the disputed findings, the burden of proof is on the local authority to prove the findings. In each case the standard of proof is the simple balance of probabilities, not more, not less.

Findings of fact must be based on evidence, including ‘inferences that can properly be drawn from the evidence and not on suspicion or speculation’ [Re A (A Child) (Fact-finding hearing: Speculation) [2011] EWCA Civ 12].

In any decision that I make involving the upbringing of a child, their welfare must be my paramount consideration, and I must take into account all of the relevant circumstances in the case, in particular the welfare checklist at s.1(3) CA 1989.

The court’s scrutiny of the care plan is limited by statute [s.31(3A) CA 1989]. The court is required to consider the permanence provisions and contact only.

The no order principle applies: the court should not make an order unless it would be better for the child to do so than not.

Article 8 and Article 6 of the ECHR are engaged. The child and each parent has a right to respect for their family life. Orders must be necessary and proportionate to the risk of harm.

On the first day of the hearing the Local Authority circulated an updated Threshold document which they had agreed with the mother. It was not agreed by the father and the Guardian was concerned that there were some significant omissions which needed to be in the document in order to found a proper analysis of the risks in the case. It had, in effect, been watered down too much. I propose to go through the substantive paragraphs of the Final Threshold as it was originally pleaded, before the redactions, to consider whether the mother’s concessions are sufficient or whether findings are necessary or indeed possible.

This is conceded by the mother save that she does not concede that she kept the children off school. There is evidence as to the mother keeping the children off school but it relates to 2023. I will return to that evidence when dealing with findings about the situation as it was in 2023, but in relation to this pleading, I make the findings as sought save that I remove the words “and kept the children off school”.

The mother accepts that the police attended the home that day and that she was detained under s2 of the MHA, diagnosed with Unspecified Non-organic Psychosis, placed on antipsychotic medication and remained in hospital for 28 days. She does not specifically accept that she was handcuffed, and in oral evidence she specifically did not accept that the children would have suffered emotional distress. The father says that observing the mother being physically restrained was both frightening and deeply distressing. He says “she is my wife and the mother of my children and in that moment my only wish was for her to recover and to be well. I did not want to see her restrained in such a way nor did I want her to be hurt. The incident was extremely emotional and difficult for me to witness”.

The police note of the incident describes AB sitting on his father’s lap, and describes the mother becoming very distressed and having to be handcuffed. It records that the father tried to grab the handcuffs out of the police officer’s hand and says that he was also arrested for obstruction. It says “Children were present and witnessed police intervention. AB was very distressed by the incident, crying hysterically and trying to get back towards his parents. Social worker had to assist in getting him into his brother’s room”. This evidence has not been challenged at this hearing. The police note together with the father’s response and the mother’s concessions all add together to form a coherent narrative. I accept that narrative of what must have been a horribly distressing incident. It seems to me inevitable that the children would have suffered emotional distress, and indeed that is graphically described in the police note. I therefore make that finding as sought.

Finding sought: By September 2022 the mother had completely disengaged with services and was non-compliant with medication, having a negative impact on the children’s well-being and their access to services such as education. AB started Nursery on 02.02.2023. He only attended 3 days in the first 7 weeks of starting at school. AB has experienced neglect and emotional harm.

The mother in her response to final threshold said she did not accept that she had ever failed to comply with her medication. However this is contradicted by the following evidence:

There is further evidence supportive of the assertion that the mother had stopped taking her medication at that time. The father’s evidence is that the facts as pleaded in this finding are true, and that the mother was preventing the children from attending school. He said that when he offered to take them she said “you are not seeing what I am seeing, there are bad people out there” and she would not let them go.

The initial social work statement records that at the start of 2023 when the mother’s mental health deteriorated, DE’s attendance was impacted, and AB only attended 3 days of nursery in the first 7 weeks. The school were very concerned. They go on to say that whilst DE attributed her absences to stomach cramps, the school had noted that the periods of DE’s absences correlated to when she was worried or anxious about her mother. It is notable that since DE and AB have been in the care of their father their school attendance has improved, to the extent that DE was reported to be much more motivated and AB had 100% attendance record.

Taking all this evidence together I find it more likely than not that the mother had stopped taking her medication in September 2022 and that the children’s education was adversely impacted as a result. I make the finding as sought.

The mother accepts this save that she does not accept that it places the children at risk of significant harm. Dr George’s oral evidence was helpful on this point. She explained that the mother was diagnosed with Delusional Disorder. With that diagnosis, her delusions took the form of unshakeable beliefs. The condition could be treated with medication which would help with anxiety and agitation but the medication would not take away the rigidly-held beliefs. Even after medication, the delusions would remain. And that is what was meant by the condition being untreatable.

I accept Dr George’s evidence on this point, and indeed the mother’s persistent delusions were to some extent evident in her oral evidence when she said she still thought there was something going on with a plane going over their house and she was still absolutely convinced that her husband had been unfaithful. I make no finding as to whether he was or not – he denies it. But the point is that it is a rigid and unshakeable belief held by the mother, it appeared, purely on the basis that a woman had been telephoning the father. He may have been having an affair, but other explanations were possible. The mother did not appear to countenance that idea but was adamant he was having an affair. It was the most animated part of her evidence.

The question I have to resolve is whether the mother’s delusions, and the fact of the mother’s diagnosis, place the children at risk of significant harm. It seems to me that the delusions have already caused them educational harm, and emotional distress. The harm has been significant to the point of AB needing speech and language assistance. The mother’s delusions have not gone away. If they are not well-managed they could cause such significant harm and distress again. The mother is currently compliant with her medication and now accepts her diagnosis and these are protective factors. However the persistent and untreatable nature of her condition means that there will always be a risk. I therefore find that the mother’s condition does place the children at risk of significant harm, but that the level of that risk will be reduced so long as she is compliant with her antipsychotic medication. The rest of the finding I make as sought.

In her response to final threshold the mother accepts that there were arguments between herself and the father but does not accept that she strangled or physically assaulted the father. In contrast, in the document agreed at the start of this hearing she accepted that there had been physical altercations and verbal arguments between the mother and the father and accepted having assaulted the father on a number of occasions. In oral evidence she clarified that by “assault” she meant that she had shoved him more than once, but that he had shoved her too.

There is evidence of the mother having done more than shoving the father. On 17 February 2022 the mother’s care coordinator referred the father to Hackney Domestic Abuse Intervention Service (DAIS) as a victim with the mother as perpetrator. That referral describes the father as a long-term victim of domestic abuse since 2014 from his wife, and mentioned also the shame and stigma of being abused by his wife within his community. He was said to be scared of her, and to be tearful and genuinely to feel unsafe. The mother’s care coordinator assessed that the mother’s mental state had deteriorated to the point where her husband and children were at risk from her symptoms of paranoia and anger. It is recorded that there was an incident of domestic violence against the husband when the mother was discharged from hospital in 2021. The case was referred to MARAC three times by professionals who were concerned about the father.

There are also a number of police reports of the father alleging that the mother had bitten or punched or otherwise assaulted him between 2017 and 2021. In August 2017 the mother was issued with a harassment warning. In the service manager’s statement dated 29 February 2024 it is recorded that on 22 July 2023, while in hospital, the mother assaulted the father. The hospital staff reported that they observed from their office that the mother slapped the father several times and shouted at him. In his 5 April 2024 statement the father says this is correct, and that the mother slapped him when he was visiting her in hospital, she tore his shirt, and he had to go home without a shirt. The service manager records that the father was asked to leave the ward and not return until the mother’s mental state was better. It is said elsewhere in the evidence that this was for his own protection.

I remind myself that this is not the all-too familiar case where parties make allegations against each other to score points because they dislike each other and are in opposition to each other. This is a case where it is the father’s dream to reconcile with his wife. He was asked in evidence if he loved her and he was unhesitating in saying “yes”. The Guardian gave oral evidence of how worried she had been watching the body language of both parents as each of them took it in turns to give evidence and to listen to it. She felt, and I agree, that they had both found it distressing to have to give and hear negative evidence about each other. There was no sense of grievance, stridency or complaint about the evidence and the parents both accepted that they had gone home after the hearing and talked to each other on the phone for a long time. All the signs are that they are searching for a way forward.

It was all the more remarkable therefore to hear the father’s oral evidence that the mother slapped him in front of AB when she came back after her arrest in 2021 and AB cried, whereupon she slapped him again. She said that when he did not answer his phone at work she would argue with him about that all night. DE would knock on the door and say “please let us sleep”, asking them to keep the noise down. Sometimes AB would be crying that the noise from the parents’ room was too much. He said she came to his work and “slapped him a big slap”. Countless times she locked the door and would not let him go to work. She took his phone, and gave him so many slaps. He talked about having to hide it from his workmates. He said she would tear his shirt and he had to go to his friend’s house with a torn shirt. DE would tell him when it had calmed down and he would come back home. Then the pattern would repeat.

This evidence from the father was compelling. It obviously distressed him to give it. At that time his case was that he just wanted the mother to come home and so he had no motive for making these things up. It would, indeed, be shameful in his culture to admit to being a victim of abuse from his wife and I have no doubt he found it hard to do so. His account is in places corroborated by the third party evidence I have referred to above. Even the mother accepts that she did assault him albeit that she does not accept the extent of it.

The Guardian is concerned that there needs to be an honest statement of the domestic situation in order for any domestic abuse work to be effective. She is concerned that if the threshold document carries the implication that this was a conflictual relationship rather than an abusive one the work will get off on the wrong foot. I agree with her, and the domestic abuse work is very important in this case. I come to the view that I must make this finding and that it is important that I do so. Given the extent to which the mother’s own treatment team were worried about the father, given the hospital staff witnessing the slaps, given the reports to the police and the warning for harassment, and given the father’s compelling oral evidence without motive for lying I come to the view that it is more likely than not that the mother did repeatedly use physical violence against the father. I make no specific finding of strangulation as the specifics of that have not been pleaded or ventilated before me. The mother says that the children were never affected by the domestic abuse because they were always upstairs with their door shut. That is in my view quite simply inherently unlikely. Children are acutely aware of what is going on in their home, and given that the abuse was repeated it is unlikely the children were safely tucked away 100% of the time. In any event, I accept the father’s account of the children coming to ask them to stop and be quiet. I also accept his account of being slapped by the mother in front of AB and AB crying. It is quite clear the children witnessed the domestic abuse and were affected by it. I therefore find that the children would have experienced emotional harm as a result of witnessing their mother’s repeated physical violence towards the father.

In the original Final Threshold document a separate finding was sought about a specific incident on 9 June 2023 where it is said police were called to the family home after the mother attacked the father including choking him and the mother was arrested. I have not seen separate police evidence as to this incident and I heard no evidence about it at the hearing. In view of the general finding I have made above, I do not consider it necessary to make any further finding in relation to this allegation, nor in my view do I have evidence to allow me to do so.

This is a troubling allegation. The father says he tried to take her phone from her when she came home late that night and would not say where she had been, and there was a struggle in which DE hit herself on the mouth. As with the previous allegation, this allegation has not been pursued at this hearing and I have heard no evidence about it. I have not seen a police report. I am also acutely aware that the father has been the sole carer for DE since mid-2023 and there has been no suggestion of any repeat, nor that it had ever happened before. There is no evidence that this is part of a pattern of behaviour or that this is an abusive father. Whilst it is necessary to take any allegation of physical harm to a child seriously, it seems to me that in this particular case matters have moved on and again, it is not necessary or indeed possible given the state of the evidence for me to make any finding on this allegation. Nor do I consider it requires further evidence or evaluation to ensure that DE is safe, as she is quite clearly safe with her father and has been for over two years.

That then concludes my consideration of the Threshold matters, and on the basis of the findings I have made I find the threshold crossed.

AB has speech and language delay. When the Guardian tried to speak to him about his wishes and feelings she found that he was not able to focus or understand her questions and preferred to play instead. When she asked whether he wanted to live with his father he said “yes”. Similarly when she asked him whether he wanted to live with his mother he said “yes”. When she asked him whether he wanted his mother to return home he nodded. AB has also told the social worker that he enjoys his time with his mother and has expressed a wish to visit the park with her daily. The social work evidence also records that the support worker who was working with the father for six weeks from 24 April to 9 June 2025 reported that AB continued to be happy in his father’s care, but continued to want his mother to be at home. In oral evidence the social worker confirmed that when AB said he wanted his mum to come home he had no idea that might mean his father and grandparents would move out. The Guardian in her analysis says that she can only assume that AB would like to live with both his parents who are both important to him. That seems a reasonable conclusion to draw from the limited information available.

AB is on the list for speech and language intervention at school but he is not considered a priority. He will also, in my view, have an enhanced need for stability and security because he has suffered emotional harm in his life, and has also suffered the sudden loss of his mother as a daily figure in his life. Prior to that she was his primary carer. DE has said that she thinks AB is confused, and once asked her “why did the police arrest my mum?”. It is probable, in my view, that he has been profoundly affected by what he has witnessed and by the changes in his living arrangements. I note that the school say that even when AB needs help in the classroom he would stay quiet and struggle rather than seek attention and ask for help. AB may not be acting out or articulating his distress but his carers will need to be astute to what may be under the surface. He will need some good explanations, some child-appropriate psychoeducation to help him understand what happened to his mother and indeed to help him look for subtle signs of relapse, and he will need a clear narrative of what has happened already and what is likely to happen in the future. He also needs regular and frequent contact with both parents. They have both played a fundamental role in his life and development and he loves them both. They are both capable of providing good attuned care to him (in the mother’s case, when she is well) and he needs to have the opportunity to experience that care from both of them.

AB is black British. His parents are both of African origin. He has a close and warm relationship with both of his older siblings who have, to some extent, assumed some care tasks for him. They are both nurturing and protective of him.

There is no doubt that the mother is capable of meeting AB’s needs well when she is well. Observations of contact between AB and his mother show her providing warm, attuned care. The Independent Social Worker said it was obvious she was a very experienced parent who reacted in an instinctive way, and she could tell the mother was used to parenting. The Guardian has observed contact twice in the community and she agrees with this assessment of the mother’s parenting. She was aware of a case in which the mother thought AB was not clothed warmly enough for the weather and bought him warmer clothing. The Guardian says that contact has been a positive experience for AB who enjoys spending time with his mother. The only concern about the mother’s parenting arises from her mental health, and I shall deal with that in my analysis of risk of harm.

The father is assessed by the Guardian as providing “good enough” care to AB. There have been concerns about his ability to meet AB’s needs since the mother was hospitalised in 2023. By his own account he had to ask his parents to come and stay to help him, and he became so overwhelmed with the task of caring for both DE and AB that his blood pressure went up and the GP told him he must take a holiday. The Local Authority have been very concerned that he relied too heavily on DE. When the social worker and the Guardian have visited the home it has been DE who made AB a meal. When the Guardian did direct work with AB, he told her his grandma wakes him up in the morning, his father gives him his breakfast, his grandmother collects him from school and DE makes his dinner and puts him to bed. DE has expressed to the social worker her distress at having to provide a high level of care for AB. The support worker who worked with the father in April and May of 2025 highlighted DE’s ongoing anxiety about the expectation of her resuming her primary care of AB if the grandparents return to Africa and she remains living with AB and her father. She said that her father was able to complete the primary care tasks but just did not want to do them.

The Local Authority have also been concerned that it is the paternal grandmother who does the majority of the school runs. They say that that is what the school reports. They are also concerned that the father’s engagement with the 6-week intervention by the family support worker was merely a “façade”. The social worker said that during the 6-weeks the school reported that the father was seen doing the school run, but once the 6-week intervention stopped, he was no longer seen. The Local Authority are concerned that it is the grandparents and DE between them who are providing the care for AB, and the father is simply not doing it. They are also concerned about the emotional warmth shown by the father to AB and further concerned that when the father has been offered further support, he has said he doesn’t need it, causing them to worry about his willingness to accept support.

The father has a different perspective. He says that when the mother was first in hospital, he was working full-time, and AB’s school was far away. It was incredibly difficult for him to manage everything. And so he asked his parents to come and help. They did. He also says that in his culture it is accepted that the older children help with the younger children. He does not see anything wrong with that. He says that he moved AB to a school much nearer to home and that made a big difference to the school runs. He explained that he works four days a week from 7.30am till 3.30 pm and one day a week from 1pm to 9pm. He says he does the school run when he is free, and his mother does it when he is not free. DE puts AB to bed on the day he is late home, otherwise he does it. He turned down the offer of a Family Support Worker because he did not need help when his parents were there. In oral evidence he was clear that his parents would return to Africa in the New Year, and that at that stage he would be very happy to have assistance from the Local Authority. He works as a carer with a public sector employer. He says he was previously able to ask for different shifts and his employers were helpful. He says when his parents go back to Africa he will go back to his flex-hours which will enable him to do the school run. He would work at weekends to make up for any financial loss and DE would have AB while he did that. If DE was at university, he would have to give up the weekend hours and work less.

The Guardian has given careful consideration to the role DE plays in providing care for AB. She was the Guardian for DE before DE dropped out of proceedings and knows DE reasonably well. She says that DE feels really responsible for AB and has worried about who would look after him after she went to university. She has been with DE when DE has been in tears talking about her mother’s difficulties and feeling that, in accordance with her culture, she is expected to be a “second mum” for AB. She accepted that DE was a “young carer” and said she had spoken to the father about it. She said he struggled to understand the impact on DE and that there were wider difficulties in his relationship with DE. He wanted to be closer to her, and engage better with her emotionally but did not know how to do it. She felt that the father and DE could be helped through all of these issues by work such as systemic family therapy, and that such work should be included in an updated Support Plan from the Local Authority.

In my view the evidence points to a father who has struggled at times to carry on a full-time job to provide financially for his family while at the same time being responsible for a young child. That struggle is not unusual and no parent manages it perfectly. In this case the father has put in place measures to ensure that AB’s needs are met by asking his parents to come and help, and by moving AB’s school. The father has been criticised for refusing to move to a property which the council offered him and which would have freed up the family home for the mother to move to, but the father had arranged matters such that the school was five minutes from his home and his work was seven minutes from his home. He had everything set up so that he could manage it. If he moved to this property he could not see how he could manage. I can see why the father thought it was better to stay where he was. He was in a situation where no choice was the right choice, and I do not criticise him for refusing to move. It appears to me that he did, often, place too much pressure and reliance on DE. If I decide that AB should remain in his care that is something he will have to work on. The Guardian’s solution is that the Local Authority should provide a family support worker not to teach or assess the father but actually to help him for example with some school runs, or whatever needed to be done. It is not controversial that AB is now attending school well, engaging well, and thriving in his father’s care. The Guardian had no concerns about the emotional bond or warmth when she saw the father and AB together. All in all I accept the Guardian’s assessment that this is “good enough” care, and is certainly not the sort of care which would give rise to the removal of a child from a parent’s care.

I have already found that AB has suffered emotional harm from witnessing behaviour and incidents caused by his mother’s mental ill-health. What is at the crux of this case is whether he would remain at risk of such harm if he were returned to her care, and if so whether that risk is manageable.

Dr George’s evidence is clear. The mother’s diagnosis is such that she must remain compliant with her medication, or she will risk relapse. The rate of descent into relapse is swift. She said if symptoms were noticed, reported and treated within the first week the treatment was likely to be successful and a full relapse averted. If there was a delay of even a week, treatment would be harder, harder still in the third week and by the fourth week a full relapse was likely. Compliance with medication was therefore key.

The mother has been compliant with her medication for two years now: initially it was administered to her in hospital for the year she was there, but since she has been in supported accommodation she has remained compliant. The system there is that there is a supervisor in the property at all times. At a set time of day they are meant to come to her to ensure that she takes her medication but in fact she says she always goes down to them, to the office where they keep it, and she asks for it. She says that when she became non-compliant in 2022 she did not accept her diagnosis. She is very clear now that she does accept her diagnosis, and she knows she needs her medication to stay well. I accept from the mother that she has been compliant and she has done well and I give her credit for that.

The Local Authority say that the mother now has full insight – indeed they used the phrase “profound insight” – into her mental health condition and they rely on the letter from the mother’s Care Coordinator, dated 28 August 2025 which says that the difference between how the mother first presented to the service compared with her presentation at that point was “very marked” and that she had gained “good insight into her mental state”. The Guardian is not so sure. On 20 September 2025 the Guardian explored with her how her medication helped her and the mother said “it calms my brain down”. However the Guardian reports that the mother found it difficult to explain what could potentially happen if she stopped taking her medication. She repeatedly replied “I am not going to put myself in that position” and “I will continue to take my medication as long as the mental health team tell me to”.

That corresponds closely to the mother’s oral evidence. She was hesitant when asked what kinds of delusions she had had. She was only able to name two examples. One was thinking that somebody was after her. The second was when she thought planes were flying over her house – that was a reference to her delusion that people were spying on her from above. She was asked whether the plane was in fact flying over her house and she said, rather hesitantly “it was”. In other words the delusion persisted, as Dr George had said it would. She was not able to give any other examples and said that her medication calmed everything down. She said she would relapse if she stopped taking her medication and would go back to seeing planes and thinking someone was after her and she did not want to go back there.

It seemed to me that that was the beginnings of some insight and, as the care coordinator put it, showed a very marked change in the mother’s understanding. But it was clear to me that there was still some way to go. It did not make sense to me that she said the delusions would come back if she stopped taking medication because the delusions are still there. She was also unable to contemplate realistically the impact of her delusions on her children, maintaining that they had never heard anything or seen anything to harm them. I would not describe this as profound insight. She has some way to go.

The relevance of the mother’s insight is that it is linked to the probability of her continuing to comply with her medication once she leaves the supported accommodation and begins to live independently in the community. Dr George’s evidence was that people who accept their illness are more likely to take the medication. She said that in her clinic, people who had transitioned to living independently would still for a period come to her clinic at a set time each day, receive their medication, stay for half an hour to make sure they had digested it, and then went home again. She seemed to me to be suggesting that something like that could benefit the mother as she made the full transition to independent living. She said she was concerned that there had been no testing period to see whether the mother remained compliant on her own in the community. The Guardian very much shared that concern.

The mother already has a great deal to cope with in managing her mental health and move to independent living but she has yet another challenge as well. She has Sickle Cell Disease which can be triggered when she is stressed or too hot or too cold. When she has a crisis she experiences great pain, and often has to go to bed or to seek medical assistance. There is a day centre which provides treatment in a crisis but the mother has sometimes instead gone to A and E in the evenings. The mother says that is because the day centre stops taking patients at 3pm, but the Local Authority say the mother was only willing to go at night for reasons which they do not fully understand. Historically the mother has had very frequent interventions to try to manage her condition sometimes on a daily or weekly basis. Dr George has explained that there is a complex interplay between Sickle Cell Disease and psychosis. The relationship between them is not wholly understood but Sickle Cell Disease is associated with psychosis. What is perhaps clearer is that the Sickle Cell Disease, when it flares up, causes stress and that is well-understood as a trigger for psychosis. It is common ground that the mother has not had a Sickle Cell crisis since May or June this year. The mother attributes this to receiving and taking some advice about drinking plenty of fluids. I commend her on having found a way which seems at present to manage her symptoms better, but the fact that the Sickle Cell Disease is present is another risk factor in terms of psychotic relapse.

In addition Dr George said that even if the mother remained compliant there was still a risk to a child in her care, and that even compliant, the mother should not have sole care of AB without another adult being in the house. She did not say the mother needed to be supervised at all times, but that there needed to be another adult living there, to pick up on any early signs of relapse, to call in the support services if needed and to protect the child as necessary.

That takes me to the question of the maternal aunt. She remains living in the family home at present, and the Local Authority’s plan is that the mother and AB should move back there tomorrow, the father and his parents should move out and the maternal aunt will supervise the mother taking her medication. Both the Guardian and Dr George have significant reservations about that. The Guardian describes a conversation with the maternal aunt in which she said “I don’t know what has happened in the past. I haven’t seen her behaviour when she has mental health. She has been okay”. She also said “I speak with my sister. I do not see mental health. My sister cooks, goes wherever she wants. She is a very fit person. Even if she has mental health I will be there to support her”. The Guardian spoke to the maternal aunt again on 23 September 2025 to assess if her understanding had shifted. She found that the maternal aunt did not know about her sister’s diagnosis or symptoms. She said it was important that her sister took her medication but was not clear what the medication helped with. Furthermore the Guardian was concerned that the maternal aunt would not be in the home very much as she is now working 37.5 hours per week.

Dr George when asked about this exchange said that when she had read it she was concerned. She said the maternal aunt had no understanding of mental illness. She talked about “mental health” rather than “mental illness” because there was stigma in even saying “mental illness”. She said the maternal aunt would need a very intense and in depth understanding and education about mental illness before she could provide suitable support. I accept Dr George’s opinion about that and accept that the maternal aunt is not in a position currently to supervise the mother taking her medication or to be the protective adult in the home, although she might in due course become able to perform that role if given education and support.

Support could, perhaps come from the community mental health team instead. The mother has been working with her care coordinator for over three years and has developed a trusting and open relationship with her. The Guardian describes the care coordinator as being very invested in ensuring that the mother has the support she needs when she moves to supported accommodation. It appears that the care coordinator has been in touch with the community mental health team local to the mother’s home address in Hackney, and a care coordinator from that team has been identified to take over the care of the mother when she moves. It is troubling to me that the social worker did not know about that, but she did not. There are two difficulties about this transition. The first is that the identification of the local team and the care coordinator are contingent on the mother moving to the home address or somewhere near it. If the mother does not return home but goes to some other address or a different part of Hackney or London the appropriate team may be a different one. In that event a different care coordinator would have to be identified. The second difficulty is that no meeting has yet taken place between the care coordinator and the new care coordinator. That is no doubt because of the uncertainty of knowing which the correct team is at this stage.

The Local Authority and the mother say that the fact a new care coordinator has been named shows that there are plans in place for a seamless transition from the current team to the new team and that the mother will receive support from the new team after a handover from the care coordinator. The father and the Guardian say that that is over-optimistic. In reality the care coordinator may change, no meetings have yet taken place, and the level of support which a community mental health team will provide is vastly lower than the 24/7 support the mother has had available to her in her accommodation. Dr George said that where patients are presenting as well and symptom-free (which is the case with this mother) weekly meetings with the CMHT soon turn to fortnightly, then monthly, then three-monthly, and are then usually stepped down to GP intervention only. She was not optimistic about the level of support from this quarter.

Where this leads is to the conclusion that despite all the good work done by the mother, and the positive indicators, there remains a risk of relapse when the mother moves to independent accommodation which is more than fanciful. It is a real risk, albeit that I would not describe it as substantial. And I accept the evidence of Dr George and the analysis of the Guardian that there is not a robust plan in place to manage that risk.

I must consider the link between the risk of relapse and the risk of harm to the children. In this case, if the mother relapses the children are at risk of emotional harm from the mother reacting to her delusions, becoming agitated and anxious, having mood fluctuations and exhibiting unpredictable and inappropriate behaviour which would impair her parenting (according to Dr George) and could even cause physical harm. Dr George reminded the court that there had been a delusion when the mother thought AB had a machine in his brain. That could give rise to a risk of her harming him physically and would certainly be frightening for the child. And there is the risk of educational harm if she were to keep them off school because she thinks they are not safe.

In addition there is a risk of emotional and possibly even physical harm to AB from witnessing or being caught up in domestic abuse. I accept that the mother has made limited concessions as to her aggression and violence towards the father but her concessions do not acknowledge the true reality. That suggests a lack of insight which would make it difficult for the mother to change her behaviour. Equally concerning is the persistence of the mother’s rigid view that the father has been unfaithful. It was clear from her evidence that this is something she remains very upset about and concerned with, and that chimed with Dr George’s experience of her being very preoccupied with it during her interview with the mother. The father’s evidence was that their arguments were about him not answering his phone whenever she wanted him to, and about the mother wanting to see his phone to see who had been phoning him. It seems likely to me that this jealous behaviour on the part of the mother stemmed from her conviction of his infidelity. That conviction is clearly a major issue for the mother still. In those circumstances, if the mother were to stop taking her medication, or stop taking it consistently, those jealous behaviours would be likely to reappear. They have given rise to her slapping the father in front of the children, tearing his shirt, and him seeking refuge elsewhere till she calms down. This has been harmful to the children in the past, and would be harmful to AB if those behaviours were to reoccur.

The chance of them reoccurring would be lower if both parties had done appropriate domestic violence work. The father has done 6 sessions of 1:1 counselling with the Domestic Abuse Intervention Service in Hackney, but he has not done a domestic abuse course with other men who have experienced similar abuse from their partners. It is the Guardian’s view that this sort of course would strengthen the father considerably and give him a better understanding of how to deal with any such situation. The mother has not done any domestic violence work at all, unsurprisingly given that she has only this week accepted being a perpetrator in any sense. In oral evidence the social worker was asked whether this kind of work was not essential before AB was returned to his mother’s care the social worker accepted that it was. That seemed to me to put a large hole in the Local Authority’s case, but they persisted with their proposal nonetheless.

In summary, the risk to AB in his mother’s care is that there is not sufficient support in the community to monitor her compliance with medication or her presentation for early signs of relapse, the mother’s ability to cope in the community is untested, the mother’s insight is partial and there is a risk of further domestic abuse given that sufficient domestic abuse work has not been done.

I have far less to say about the risk of harm to AB in his father’s care. His father has found ways to ensure that his needs are met in the two years he has looked after him as a sole parent. He has not always done all the caring himself but he has ensured AB’s safety and welfare. AB is thriving, well and happy and only wishes his mother could come home. The Guardian and the ISW are satisfied that the father is meeting AB’s emotional needs. I do not consider there is a risk of significant harm to AB in his father’s care.

The Local Authority’s plan is that AB is placed in his mother’s care tomorrow.

At present, AB has 5 hours of supervised contact per week with his mother. It is positive for them both, but there has not yet been any unsupervised contact, contact at the mother’s home or overnight contact. The Local Authority say none of that is needed because the mother was his primary carer before her psychosis in 2023, and she can resume her duties – they do not use the phrase “as if nothing had happened” but it seems to me that is the tenor of their proposal. It is their primary proposal that the father and grandparents move out tomorrow, leaving AB with his mother and maternal aunt alone.

There is no analysis in their evidence of what the effect of such a sudden and dramatic change on AB would be. Even if all went well, and the mother remained well, the change is seismic for AB. To find his father and grandparents, who between them have provided his primary care for two years, suddenly gone would be deeply upsetting and destabilising, bewildering and in all probability heart-breaking for AB. He would of course see them for contact and that would help, but the change proposed is very sudden and very big, and not, as far as I can tell, in line with his wishes and feelings. No preparation work has been done with him, and no transition plan prepared. There is no proposal for a gradual build-up of contact with the mother to smooth the path. Given the nature of the change proposed it is frankly astonishing that there is no Local Authority analysis of the impact of it on AB.

It has been rightly said on behalf of the Guardian that this is not a case which should have been run as a case of the mother against the father. Both want the other to play a full role in AB’s life. This should have been about helping them to find a way to make that possible, bearing in mind the mother’s health challenges. Instead the case has been run as if the parents were against each other. That simply does not reflect the reality of the situation and it has been most unhelpful.

In cross-examination, the social worker made the following concessions:

Many of these concessions directly contradict the Local Authority plan and position. It was extraordinary that the Local Authority continued with its case unaltered after this evidence was given – all the more so since the Local Authority were rejecting the clear advice of Julia Hughes, Dr George and the Guardian.

I am required to balance all the realistic options. In this case, it is clear to me on the basis of the evidence I have set out above that returning AB to his mother’s care is unrealistic. There has been no testing of the mother in the community. She has not done then necessary domestic abuse work. There has been no preparation of AB and no transition. The idea that the father and grandparents may move out or may not is unsatisfactory either way: if they stay there is the risk of domestic violence, if they go AB will be bewildered and distressed and at risk. There is no updated safety plan, no suitable adult to supervise the mother’s medication and mental health. There is nowhere for the father and grandparents to go. The Local Authority’s plan is wholly unrealistic, contrary to all the expert advice, and unsafe for AB. The Guardian went as far as to describe it as “dangerous”.

The remaining option is for AB to remain in the family home with his father. DE and the grandparents are there at present. They will not always be there. It is again extraordinary that the Local Authority have provided no support plan for the father for how he would be supported in those circumstances if I were to leave AB placed with him. It seems to me he would need domestic abuse work (perhaps with the organisation identified by the Guardian, Wise Guys), practical support, family therapy for the father and DE and direct work to be done with AB. Given my findings that the father has been able to provide good enough parenting and that AB has thrived in his care, it seems to me this is a safe and positive placement for AB and it is in his welfare interests to remain there.

That does not mean that the mother will play the role of a “contact mum” only. What is needed for her is a move to independent accommodation, a period of testing on her own to see how she adjusts and then if all is well, an increase in contact, moving up to unsupervised and staying contact. The Guardian has set out at paragraph 68 of her final analysis a proposed plan for such a development of her contact, and I endorse that plan.

Dr George has said that the mother will never be in a position to be a sole parent of AB, in that she will need someone to live in the house with her. In the fullness of time, if she remains compliant with medication and relapse-free, I consider it possible that she will move to a point where she is able to co-parent AB in some meaningful way, whether that means reconciliation and living with the father or not. But for AB’s sake it is necessary to move in cautious steps. It is helpful that the father is so keen for the mother to be involved. He wants her to get the help and support she needs, and he wants her to resume a parenting role as soon as she is safely able to. He will therefore support increases in the mother’s contact in line with the Guardian’s proposed programme I am sure.

This is not a case where it seems to me the father has won, because AB is staying with him. It is a case where we are all looking for a way forward for the mother to increase her role, to see more of AB and to be a bigger part of his life. The orders I propose to make will I hope achieve that. I therefore make an order today that AB lives with his father. I also continue the Occupation Order for six months. I hope that those two orders will assist the mother in finding accommodation outside her supported accommodation. I was told in evidence that the Local Authority housing department are standing by to help her, but they needed clarity about the living arrangements. The orders I have made will make it clear that AB needs accommodation to stay with his father, that the mother is not able to go there, and that she therefore needs accommodation elsewhere. A meeting must take place with housing, the care coordinator and the social worker within the next few days to try to take the matter forward, and to consider if necessary transfer of the tenancy of the family home to the father. I look forward to receiving an update about housing in due course now that those orders are made

That said, it is not clear to me that I can make a final supervision order today. There are too many matters outstanding which the Local Authority should have provided but have not. The placement of AB with his father will clearly need to be supported and in principal I am persuaded that a 12 month supervision order is the right way to go about that, but I will need a proper support plan before I can say I am satisfied that it is the right order.

The Local Authority must therefore file and serve within 2 weeks a support plan which includes the following matters

That last item was the suggestion of the Guardian. It is not intended to be a direct criticism of the current social worker: indeed all parties have been careful not to criticise her. However the Guardian and the father at least have felt that there have been significant Local Authority failings in this case. In particular the Guardian points out that the Local Authority changed their plan to a plan of rehabilitation to the mother in their statement dated 4 April 2025. That pre-dated an email dated 30 April 2025 from the care coordinator to the mother’s solicitors which said this:

Given the Local Authority’s reliance on a later letter from the care coordinator to justify their final care plan, and what must therefore be their trust in her judgment, it is all the more concerning that must have they changed their care plan to a plan of immediate return to the mother without first obtaining an update from her which, given the contents of the 30 April 2024 email, would have been bound to have contained information contrary to the new care plan.

The father and the Guardian have both raised concerns that there has been a failure in the Local Authority in this case. It was said on behalf of the Guardian that the Local Authority’s insistence on their plan in the face of the expert evidence and the care coordinator’s email was dogmatic, ill-thought out and unsafe and was as if the Local Authority had its fingers in its ears and was singing loudly and simply not listening. I am bound to agree with that analysis. I do consider there have been failures of oversight in this case which have led to an entirely unrealistic plan being pursued. I therefore direct that this judgment be sent to the Head of Children’s Services at Hackney, and the Head of Children’s Services be asked to conduct a review of this case, in particular in relation to the decision-making and oversight of that decision-making. The purpose of that direction is not to single the social worker out for criticism. If anything she was very fair in her evidence, and I do not criticise her for making the concessions which she made.

I direct that this case be brought back before me in around two or three weeks’ time for a review of the Supervision Plan and for making a final Supervision Order, if possible.