A & B (Children) (Placement with parent or SGO), Re

I have heard evidence and submissions over 4-days and I am now required to decide what is in the welfare interests of the two children subject to these proceedings. I bear all the evidence received in mind, whether written or spoken although I will not refer to all of it within this focused judgment. I heard evidence from both parents, the social worker, children’s guardian and from a witness to a disputed event of domestic violence. I also heard from a professional from DVACT (an organisation expert in the provision of Family Safety Assessments).

The realistic options before me are that the children continue to live with their father (whilst having contact with their mother) under a 1-year supervision order or that they are placed with their paternal aunt under a special guardianship order (and have contact with both parents).

The applicant local authority, first respondent mother and children’s guardian all favour the special guardianship outcome. This is supported by LB Hounslow who would be the designated authority under any supervision order. The second respondent father argues the children should remain with him but accepts the children should otherwise be placed with his sister. As a result, the focus of this hearing has been on the reasons why the father should not care for the children. There has been no examination of the care the aunt could give the children on the basis all agree it would be good enough.

The central concern in this case relates to the father and the risk of a future domestically abusive relationship between him and a future partner(s). All agree were this to happen the impact on the children would be significantly harmful.

When I come to decide what has taken place between the parents I will be engaged in a fact-finding process. To reach conclusions the applicant will need to prove on balance of probabilities the alleged event occurred. The respondent to the allegation, in this case the father, will not have any burden to disprove the allegation. If I am satisfied that on balance an event occurred as alleged then I will find this as a fact. If I am not so satisfied I will disregard the allegation. In reaching conclusions all evidence will be important but the evidence of the parents will be a central part of the assessment. I can have regard to inherent probabilities but should always return to what the actual evidence tells me. I can have regard to lies found to have been told by a witness but should not rely on these to establish the truth of allegations without carrying out an appropriate analysis in line with the settled case law. I will keep in mind that witnesses may lie for a range of reasons and not all lies with be probative when considering the issues under consideration.

When I come to consider the welfare outcome for these two young children I will consider the legal threshold in the case and whether it has been established that the children suffered significant harm arising out of the care given to them by their parents with such care not being what would be expected from a reasonable carer or whether the children were likely to suffer significant harm based on the care they would likely be given were an order not made. If this threshold is crossed then I am entitled to make the public law supervision order sought by the father. If it is not then I am not entitled to make any public law order. The fact-finding elements will feed into the threshold in this case.

My placement decision will be informed by the welfare interests of the children which are paramount, by a balanced assessment of the realistic options and by appropriate respect for private family life. Any interference in family life as suggested by the special guardianship order must be a proportionate, necessary, and reasonable intervention in the light of the evidence. Interventions based on risk of future harm raise four questions: (1) The Court must first identity the type of harm that might arise; (2) The Court must then assess the likelihood of that harm arising before considering; (3) The consequences for the child should that arise, i.e. the likely severity of harm in such circumstances, and; (4) risk reduction and mitigation that might be offered / put in place in the light of the above and the prospects for the same being effective.

The law does not presume in favour of parental care. The care required is good enough care. The Court accepts parents are not perfect and that many children receive less than best care and often receive inconsistent and problematic levels of care. All of this must be accepted in a free society in which social engineering has no place.

I do not intend to give a detailed background within this section. I have borne in mind the comprehensive background summary information found within all the assessment documents including the history detailed in the DVACT assessment. What follows is an account of the key relevant highlights.

The father is aged 35, the mother is aged 25.

The mother had a dislocated upbringing between the care of her mother and grandmother. Her home life was surrounded by domestic abuse and there were elements of drug abuse. She was physically abused in the home. She commenced sexual activity at an early age. Her first adult relationship was significantly abusive and her early adulthood involved periods of homelessness and drug use. The mother reports anxiety and depression from her teenage years and engaged in self-harming behaviours. She continues to suffer with impacted mental health and has had suicidal thoughts and actions. The mother reports using cannabis from age 12 and cocaine from age 18. She later smoked spice. Cannabis use was a feature of the relationship with the father. The mother has struggled to engage with support services. She has a very limited criminal history.

The father also experienced a difficult childhood. He reports physical and emotional abuse at home and has recently mentioned experiencing sexual abuse. He appears to have run away from home at around 13 years of age and was placed into a care home before being placed into supported accommodation. He has older children. The first was born when he was 16 years of age. When the relationship with this child’s mother ended the father was homeless for a period and living on the street. He then formed another relationship and his second child was born. At around this time he started using crack cocaine and heroin with the child’s mother. The child was removed and placed into foster care. The child ultimately ended up placed with his mother as special guardian where she remains and would now be approaching 16 years of age. In early adulthood he was detained in a secure unit due to cannabis related psychosis but reports no mental health issues since. The father has a significant history of drug misuse as mentioned above. He reports cannabis use since age 12. He started class-A usage aged 21 until 2021 when he commenced medication to come off these drugs. He now receives a monthly depot injection and has done do since around 2021. The father has a lengthy criminal history including violent offences and offences with a domestically abusive character. His first conviction dates to age 14. He has offences for weapons, theft and robbery. He has convictions relating to domestic abuse. He is currently facing a trial for offences detailed in this judgment.

The parents met in 2021 and formed an intimate relationship. In October 2021 the mother suffered a miscarriage and following this issues began to develop in their relationship. Their first child was born in early 2023. There was an incident in 2021 in which the father assaulted the mother and there are further reports in which it is alleged the father has hit the mother and an incident where he hit her and in responding she slapped the child whilst in his arms. There was an incident in 2023 when the father kicked in the front door following a disagreement. He was subsequently arrested following a physical tussle with the police. It seems the parties may have separated in late 2023 but they continued to meet and a further incident occurred in January 2024. Still, they remained in contact and notwithstanding bail conditions continued to meet and communicate. There was a final incident in the summer of 2024 which appears to have led to the final ending of the relationship. Around this time their youngest child was born.

The public law proceedings were preceded by private law proceedings commenced by the father in early December 2023. Initially they were issued out of the East London Family Court and heard in Bromley with an initial section 7 report from the London Borough of Bromley. The proceedings were then transferred to this Court and shortly after the younger child was born into the proceedings. This applicant local authority became the designated authority and interim child arrangements were fixed. On 16 January 2025, the private proceedings were overtaken by this application. At that point in time and since the children have been living with their father.

At the first hearing placement with the father was confirmed and an interim supervision order made. Directions including, parenting assessments, DVACT assessment, hair strand testing (HST) and alternative carer assessments were given and an IRH fixed in June 2025. Shortly before that IRH the father produced a HST which raised concerns. The applicant had been proposing a placement with father under a final supervision order which was agreed by the father albeit not agreed by the likely designated local authority (LB Hounslow). The guardian had not reported but was concerned by the HST results. The mother opposed placement with the father. The Court expressed concern as to testing results, ordered some further testing and an addendum DVACT assessment with a further IRH fixed in October 2025. This final hearing was fixed at that IRH. During the proceedings there was an expectation/hope the father’s criminal proceedings would be resolved first. However, the proceedings have been delayed to summer 2026 and the Court has made clear the children’s welfare cannot await the resolution of criminal proceedings. I had not heard this case prior to final hearing. The proceedings are now in week fifty-three.

There is no question the legal threshold is crossed in this case as set out within an agreed document which I approve. This document agrees the children have suffered or will be at risk of suffering significant physical and/or emotional harm:

There is one allegation in dispute which relates to an incident on 12 January 2024 during which the father is alleged to have been under the influence of alcohol, caused criminal damage to the property in which the mother lives and both hit and strangled the mother in the course of the event. The father admits drinking but not being ‘drunk,’ hitting the mother incidental to a tussle and grabbing her but not strangling her. The father is facing criminal trial for these matters. He has admitted the criminal damage but has pleaded not guilty to charges of assault (I am unclear as to the exact charge) and non-fatal strangulation. His trial was scheduled to take place in the summer 2025 but has now been put back to August 2026. I agree this allegation needs to be resolved. It is impacting on the ability to assess the father among other matters. I am helped in reaching conclusions by a range of real evidence including CCTV evidence and police disclosure, by the evidence of the parents and by the evidence of a passerby. This evidence has allowed me to reach clear conclusions as set out below.

In reaching these conclusions I am assisted by a very clear CCTV which shows the events on that day with a view down the street including the mother’s front door. I can see the father’s arrival, him waiting for the mother, their subsequent engagement and then the alleged events. It is clear the father attended to collect the child. Both parties agree the same. Whilst there is no audio it seems clear the mother is not overly concerned by this as she continues to leave the property in line with the arrangement.

The circumstances then change and the parents appear to be in a dispute. The mother would say this is due to her concern around alcohol. The father agrees he had drunk a can of Jack Daniels mixed with coke. There is a dispute as to whether the father was drinking the same on video. I am not persuaded he was as I agree the CCTV suggests he was closing a screw top container rather than a can but I judge nothing turns on this and the mother does not allege he was drinking in her sight.

I agree he was impacted by alcohol. As I note he agrees he had been drinking and it is clear to me something caused the mother to alter the pre-arranged plans and to take the child home. She explains this was due to her concerns about his drinking. She reported contemporaneously to the police raising this with him and the father saying he had only had a can of Jack Daniels and coke. This fits with his current account and is a credible account from the mother. She also says she could smell alcohol. On the video the father’s walking gait (see around [5:20] on CCTV) is suggestive of being slightly unsteady and whilst I do not place heavy reliance on this it supports my conclusion. I find the mother a more credible witness as to the account overall and taking all the evidence together prefer her account in this regard. I am not finding the father was ‘drunk’ but I do find he was appreciably impacted by the alcohol and I find it likely this contributed to what followed.

There was plainly a tussle in the hallway over the child’s buggy. The mother was seeking to prevent the child being taken and the father seeking to take the child in buggy. This is agreed and can be inferred from the CCTV. It is agreed the mother slapped the father during the event. She agrees the same. In context I can understand her actions following the father forcing his way into the property. The father can have no complaint and I am not clear he does. The whole nature of the event including the forced entry suggests a determination on the part of the father which lends support to the mother’s account. It is clear to me the father’s emotions have got the better of him, likely affected by alcohol.

I am satisfied during this the father struck the mother to the face. It is difficult to be confident as to the exact mechanism given the nature of the tussle in a confined space and the surrounding emotions which may well have led to confusion as to detail. But I am confident the mother got hit in the face (nose) in a forceful manner. On balance, and having regard to the second incident below, I am confident this was not simply an accidental contact in the moment as described by the father with his elbow catching her face. It would be surprising for such an accident to happen twice in such circumstances. I am confident in frustration (by reason of her preventing him having the child and possibly due to the slap) he responded by assaulting her. I bear in mind these circumstances were of the father’s making. I have regard to his own WhatsApp messaging in which he stated ‘…I hit u in the face after twice u strikes me!!!.’ I cannot say whether this was a punch or a different form of blow but I am persuaded the father hit the mother.

I am supported in my conclusion by the CCTV evidence and the evidence of the neighbour who was outside the door and witnessed a tussle taking place, although I accept neither witness nor CCTV captured the contact in question. I note the way the father leaves the property [7:27] which speaks as to the nature of the tussle taking place. I also reflect on the father then kicking in the door which is a strong indication as the anger he was feeling which supports my finding. I place weight on the contemporaneous report made by the mother both in the 999 call and to the police as shown in their Body Worn Footage (BWF) which supports her allegation.

I am satisfied the father during this (the first entry) used his hand to control/hold the mother back whilst he tried to take the buggy. The father is a much larger/taller individual then the mother and there is a likelihood that were he to grab her as alleged and hold her then this would be towards the upper end of her body. I can see from the BWF that this is contained common hall space in a property of multiple occupation. The father agrees he grabbed the mother by her hoodie and I accept this might have been part of the event. The mother says she was strangled and that she was held around the throat. Neither the CCTV nor neighbour can help with this dispute although the neighbour clearly heard a heated argument and saw physical contact between the two.

I am not persuaded the father strangled the mother. I avoid engaging in an analysis based on criminal definitions and focus on what happened. It is necessary to provide some form of definition of what it means to be strangled to properly assess this allegation. I proceed on the common-sense basis that strangulation includes an element of constriction of the throat with a consequent impact on the victim’s respiration. I do not consider this requires a particular level of force to amount to strangulation nor does it require any injury. However, holding a person in the area of the throat or neck by itself is not strangulation.

In approaching this subject, I am conscious that strangulation is a particularly concerning assault given the potential for very serious harm. I am also conscious of the role it can play as part of a pattern of abusive behaviour. Alongside other aspects of conduct it can amount to an extreme demonstration of the absolute control that a perpetrator exercises over a victim. As an issue it deserves the closest scrutiny.

My conclusion follows directly from the evidence of the mother. I fundamentally accept her account over that of the father in this regard. Overall, she has been consistent in her account whereas the father has modified his account in accordance with the available evidence. I will return to this feature below when I consider potential for insight and change. However, it tells me she is the more reliable witness to the event.

In her live evidence she detailed the event in some detail. Her account included the father holding her around the neck but she did not suggest he in any way sought to or did constrict her breathing. She does not allege the action was associated with a threat. It is clear he was doing this to assist in removing the child. It is clear this was a physically controlling action rather than a directed assault upon her. Secondly, she was clear during the time when she was being held in this way she was talking to the father. She told me she told him she might be pregnant. Whilst I make no finding as to the words which are in dispute I do accept she was communicating with him. There is in my assessment a conflict between being strangled and being able to maintain a form of conversation as suggested. Finally, the mother told me, when I asked, that the force exerted on her throat occurred when she pushed herself against his hand to escape from his hold. It is clear this was not the father tightening his grip on her.

On this clear evidence I could not find an act of strangulation. I note in police interview the act is simply put as grabbing her by the neck and holding her against the wall (which I find happened). I also note in the statement of the mother given to the police and in her discussion with the police at the scene the mother does not refer to being strangled but to being held. It is only when the police commence their DARA (domestic abuse risk assessment) questions and directly ask about strangulation that the mother answers in the positive. Later [269] the mother links her being held and the fact that woman risk being strangled without at any point commenting that she was strangled. Taken together these do not support the allegation of strangulation albeit the same act is plainly part of a domestically abusive incident.

It is clear I fundamentally reject the key components of the father’s denial of the allegation. I am mindful he has modified his case as the evidence against him has improved. He only agreed he kicked in the door when shown the CCTV. He only agreed he assaulted the mother when shown screenshots of his own message in which he admitted the same. I am confident his denial is significantly influenced by the charges he faces. This makes it difficult to place any reliance on his evidence as to the event. As to the strangulation I am confident this is by far the most serious allegation the father faces and he has a strong interest in denying any contact which could be interpreted as being strangulation. As it happens I disbelieve him but find this was not strangulation.

Completing the picture, I accept the mother’s account that during the much shorter second incident she was hit again. As I note this finding mutually supports the earlier finding. This finding is also supported by the evidence of the neighbour who perceived hearing an assault in the way in which he heard the mother respond. It was difficulty to convey what this meant but it was the sound of someone being hit. I accept he did not see the event but this independent evidence supports the already credible mother’s evidence.

That completes my fact finding as far as threshold is concerned.

I do not intend to provide an exhaustive account of the evidence received. I will focus on key topics which illuminate an understanding of the case and enable proper decision making.

Here I am not considering the father’s historic abuse of alcohol. I am also not considering the potential inter-relationship between alcohol per se and domestic abuse. As set out above I found this to be linked during the event in January 2024 and there is elsewhere good evidence that incidents of domestic abuse have been associated with alcohol consumption. This is not surprising. It is commonplace for such behaviour to be linked as alcohol blurs boundaries, disinhibits behaviour and can impact on mood regulation. Throughout the hearing I recognised this as a factor requiring scrutiny. This remains the case.

Instead, I focus on the suggestion that the father has consumed alcohol during the proceedings at such a level as to constitute chronic excess consumption. Conventionally within testing this is understood to approximate the equivalent of around seven units per day (a bottle of wine at 12% alcohol equating to 8.4 units) over a period.

This case came before me on an agreed basis, that the father had been found to have consumed alcohol at a chronically excessive level by reason of a HST from June 2025 and which covered a period between March and June 2025.

It can be seen this result was central to the IRH decisions in June 2025 and is clearly a part of the applicant’s recalibration of risk leading to a modified care plan from placement with father to SGO. It can also be seen to have underpinned the thinking of the DVACT reporter and the professionals in the case. This culminates in the guardian reporting in her final analysis that the father has ‘continued to misuse alcohol excessively throughout these proceedings.’ A further aspect of this is that the father is said to have been dishonest and lacking in transparency when reporting his alcohol consumption (as compared to the HST result) and this is said to add to the concerns around working with him outside of proceedings. Again, referencing the guardian’s final analysis [§20]

Yet by final submissions all counsel (save for mother’s counsel) accepted the HST did not support the conclusion around excess consumption, and counsel for the mother was reliant on an extrapolation route to reach any conclusion as to excess alcohol. This begs the obvious question as to how such a situation could have arisen? To answer this one needs to briefly outline the HST results:

A fair reading of these reports is that the father was drinking alcohol prior to June but not at an excess level but that following the June hearing he stopped drinking and by November 2025 had been abstinent for up to/around 6 months.

Counsel for the mother argues I can still extrapolate the results to find evidence of excess alcohol in the June result. I am asked to have regard to the PETH result which indicates drinking in the last month but at a level below excess levels. I am then asked to take the EtG result for the full period which is close to the cut-off and from this extrapolate a level above the cut-off prior to the month covered by the PETH. In simple terms over three months if the last month is below the cut-off point and the overall average is at the cut-off point then in the first two months at some stage the levels must be over the cut-off point and thus excessive. Counsel argues the reference to an ‘integrated average’ in the quote above permits this extrapolation.

I remind myself that caution should always be taken with testing of this nature and that the Court should be mindful of surrounding evidence to fortify the results. There is clear case law to such effect. For my part I am unwilling to stretch the results in the way suggested by counsel for the mother to achieve the goal sought. The quote referenced could have explicitly stated the point made by counsel if it had intended to do so, yet it did not. It suggests the stated level of consumption is not consistent with the result. That may be right but that is not a statement supporting excess use rather a statement supporting understated non-excess use, i.e. one would expect a lower reading at this level of stated consumption. Further the use of the word ‘however’ in isolation is unclear. It is not clear what the contrast being drawn is in this sentence. It then suggests the PETH result may suggest a reduction in drinking in the last month. That of course may be correct. The real issue though is the suggestion that one can obtain a granular conclusion from the fact the EtG result is close to the cut-off point. It seemed counsel at times was asking me to conclude this was a near miss which should count against the father. I was unwilling to take this approach in the context of the caution the Court should have around such testing, the fact that the crossing of the threshold is itself ‘suggestive’ of excess consumption not proof of the same and the reality that no direct line can be drawn between the result in ng/mg and actual drinking. No-one suggests one can plot a straight line such that 30ng/mg equates to 8.4 units a day and that 29ng/mg equates to 29/30ths of the same. To do so is to enter the territory of impermissible speculation. In my assessment one has either crossed the line or one has not. It is with the crossing of the line that the Court can reach appropriate conclusions, but below that line absent additional evidence to the contrary the Court should not conclude. Put another way I am not persuaded a party can both argue that crossing the line is evidence of excess but getting close to it is also evidence of the same. I also do not lose sight of the clear caution that no single measure should be used alone. It seems to me this point has been lost in focusing on one result alone to the exclusion of all others and then stretching it beyond reasonableness.

I favour the actual testing result and scientific cut-off points taken together over the narrative account. I conclude I do not have evidence of excess consumption during the period although I plainly have evidence of drinking during the period and occasions on which the father may have consumed more than 8.4 units in ‘one sitting.’ I remind myself the test is for chronic consumption not episodic consumption.

I consider this has significant implication given the reliance upon this feature when constructing the care plan. I am not attracted to a revisionist approach which seeks to simply remove this component but maintain the same conclusions without good explanation.

There is very good evidence to support the conclusion that the father as of January 2024 and before that time was not well placed to provide good enough parenting to his children. I have clear evidence of his previous criminality and I am satisfied this included components of domestic abuse in more than one relationship. My conclusions relating to January 2024 are not an aberration as far as the father is concerned and so far as the mother is concerned. Furthermore, his behaviour was surrounded by and influenced by substance abuse including crack cocaine, heroin, and other drugs. This contributed to the background set out in the section above. As he acknowledged he lost the care of previous children because of a failure to prioritise their needs over his own.

Absent real and meaningful change it is clear the father would not be a candidate for caring for these children and the irresistible conclusion would be the making of a SGO order. I do not need to further detail the points which support this view. They are writ large in the evidence and all but conceded by the father. I will though return to this topic and examine the extent to which this history can be safely taken as a predictor of future conduct. The real issue in this case being whether I can find change and sufficient change in his behaviour to justify the outcome proposed by the father.

The father receives a depot injection monthly to address his heroin addiction. His evidence, unchallenged, was that he has maintained this for the last 3½ years. There is no basis for disputing this contention. An ability to keep to such a regime is important evidence.

However, it is clear this did not address the father’s use of drugs. Both he and the mother consumed cannabis to an unhealthy extent. The father contends he has now abstained from such usage as he focuses on caring for the children. I have the benefit of HST for the father taken during the proceedings. The first, for the period August 2024 to November 2024, is negative for cannabis. A similar result was obtained when tested for the period June to August 2025. The evidence obtained during the proceedings suggests the father has abstained from cannabis use.

I have the alcohol results as above. I was asked to reflect on whether this was a case in which the father had moved from one problematic substance to another replacing hard drugs with soft drugs and then that with alcohol. I suspect there is a level of truth in this contention and the father recognised the same but whilst this may have been the case it is not clear the father is currently showing a reliance let alone a dependence on any substance.

I was surprised the professionals were unable to draw more in the way of positives from this trajectory. The situation faced in this case is commonplace within proceedings of this sort and there is always a keen focus on demonstrating an ability to show change within the timescales of the proceedings. It is common for the Court to be referred to the need for a sustained period of abstinence when considering substance issues. Here the father appears to have demonstrated some real commitment and success when confronting a high-level dependence on highly addictive drugs. He has managed this whilst struggling with other challenges (not all of which have been successfully managed). At the end of proceedings, it appears he has removed all substances from his day-to-day life. Whilst the professionals acknowledged the progress I was surprised they did not do so with a greater degree of positivism. It was unclear to me to what extent this had found its way into the balancing assessment particularly when I was being asked to assess the father’s ability to sustain change and maintain focus on his children when considering issues of domestic abuse. Whilst I accept there is not a direct read over from one feature to another I am in no doubt had the father failed to maintain sobriety then the negative linkage would have been front and centre of any assessment.

The children were spending time with both parents as of September 2024 (living with the mother and spending weekends with the father). In early September 2024, the father retained the children and since this time they have been in his care. In September 2024, the children were aged 2 months of age and 18 months of age. There is a criticism of the father for retaining the children in September 2024. This point was not pursued other than on behalf of the mother. On the evidence of the chronology provided by the applicant the father had good reasons to retain the children in circumstances in which the mother was expressing an intention to self-harm.

The evidence as to the care the children have received since then is entirely positive. The professionals agree the children are thriving in the father’s care. In submissions it was suggested there was no question the father could meet their basic needs. This observation was lacking in generosity given the evidence of good all-round care rather than simply meeting basic needs. The evidence further confirmed a very strong bond between father and children with no criticisms of their care raised. The father has engaged with professionals around the children and there was a very positive report from the older child’s nursery as to her presentation and the role undertaken by the father. This referenced a child who has ‘made very good relationships,’ whose ‘attendance is excellent,’ ‘always well dressed in clean…clothes,’ who attends with ‘an excellent lunch.’ The father was given guidance as to toilet training and was able to ‘get her toilet trained very well and very quickly.’ In summary the child ‘is reaching all of her developmental milestones [with] no concerns about her learning, she is speaking well, engaging in activities, and beginning to make friends with her peers.’ A Court will often draw on reports from independent agencies as shedding light on what is happening at home. Negative presentation will often be powerfully suggestive of the child’s lived experience when out of sight of professionals. In this case the reports give confidence the children’s lived experience is as viewed when in sight.

I have been asked to consider whether the father is only achieving these outcomes out of the fact he is living with his mother with the children. The suggestion is that without this support care might be different. There is no evidence to support this theory which proceeds entirely on inference and runs the risk of being fed by gendered stereotypes. Nonetheless, I have little doubt the father receives support from his mother and I consider he likely also receives support from his two sisters, both of whom have been positively assessed. The evidence is of a supportive family and it would be surprising if they were simply leaving the father to get on with it without support. The challenge though is in distinguishing between this feature as a positive and viewing it as a worry suggestive of dependence.

Again, it is commonplace for the Court to be cautioned as to the risks attendant on an absence of support network. It is therefore a little bewildering to find the presence of the same considered as a possible negative marker. The reality is had the professionals been concerned as to this feature then they could have spoken to the individuals concerned to investigate the level of support being required by the father. Yet I have no such evidence. It is no part of the father’s case to suggest he will, on the cessation of proceedings, lead an independent life away from his family. As such the support they offer now and the fact it is welcomed by the father must be taken into the assessment when considering the future.

This is again a real positive in the case. The father has engaged with a number of support structures from ARC (substance misuse support), Talking Therapy, Caring Dads Programme and CBT. In each case he appears to have engaged positively and completed the programmes. He is looking to undertake a further course of CBT and spoke as to the benefits he has achieved from each of the above showing insight and reflection.

Once again the Court is regularly confronted at final hearing by parents who are ‘just ready to engage’ or who are evincing an intention to do so. In other cases, the concern is as to future engagement. The simple fact the father has done the above deserves recognition. It is also a positive indicator as to future engagement with other professionals. I am frequently asked to take poor engagement with professional A as being an indicator of poor engagement with professional B. This logic holds in both directions.

One of the concerns in this case is as to the father’s openness and transparency (around drinking and domestic abuse in particular). I have dealt with the difficulty around the former where results have been mischaracterised. I will focus on the latter point below. But I consider any assessment of the father fails to fully assess his case if it does not pay proper regard to the work he has in fact done. It is important to note that aspects of the work have caused the father to speak as to trauma in his past relating to very sensitive issues (sexual abuse). His ability to do this is a relevant factor when considering how he will engage in future.

I cannot ignore the evidence of the guardian, when asked, that she had not seen the father since October 2025 and had not discussed any of the work detailed above with him or his recent period of abstinence. In my assessment this does impact on the weight one can apply to her analysis when considering the potential for the father to engage in the future let alone the changes he may have made to date. To what extent can the guardian fairly consider the father’s future engagement with DV related work without considering with him how he has engaged with other works and what he has drawn from the same. I consider that was a missed opportunity.

I would observe the following. The father presents as a large man who very much fits with the account found in the history. I saw him for the first time through the documents within the bundle. My first impression was not favourable when taken with the evidence I read. However, I was surprised when seeing and listening to him as to the extent of the work he has undertaken and when listening to him he seemed to me to be reflecting a much greater level of insight and understanding than I had anticipated from him. Overall whilst I was most unimpressed by some of his behaviour I was impressed by the way he conducted himself in Court and the evidence he gave when reflecting on his children and the work he had done. He was calm and measured when answering difficult questions. I was impressed by the efforts and focus he had given to the children and to self-improvement in the last 15 months. This evidence reshaped my impression. The Court must avoid a one-dimensional assessment of any parent (I agree with DVACT in this regard) and must keep an open mind until all the evidence is heard. In this case whilst I retain concerns about the father I also recognise some very real positives.

I was surprised when I tested the guardian’s position as to where her analysis would have rested if the SGO option had fallen away. She told me in such circumstances she would have favoured an adoption route for the children. I would not have reached that conclusion as the evidence simply would not have allowed me to reach such a conclusion. Of course, I am not required to do so but I could not have countenanced the children being adopted on the evidence before me in any event.

It is clear this is the key feature of concern in the case when considering the father’s position. I make clear I share these concerns. This issue lies at the heart of the case and it is clear to me at the end of the case I can have no absolute confidence in this regard for the future.

Once a pattern of domestic abuse has been established, as it has been here, the Court will be looking to see whether the perpetrator can acknowledge their behaviour, reflect on the same, recognise the impact of their behaviour, identify the triggers which are associated with such behaviour and address the same giving confidence that such behaviour will not be repeated. It is in the nature of such work that outcomes are normally measured in reduced risks rather than the removal of all risk.

To engage in this process an individual must be open and honest in their working with professionals otherwise the process is undermined and real confidence cannot be placed in the outcome reached. A complicating feature can arise where an individual disputes features of the domestic abuse and is thus viewed as being in denial. Such a situation can mean work will not be offered although the Court is familiar with some programmes which offer work in such circumstances. Still, it is plain the prospects of a successful outcome are much more likely when approached in an open and honest manner.

In this case a Family Safety Assessment was commissioned from DVACT, a well-respected team in the field. I have a final report (March 2025) and an addendum report (August 2025). At outset I note the following categories of risk which are relevant in this judgment. In the report ‘substantial; means ‘likely to occur’ whereas ‘moderate’ means ‘may occur’ (a real possibility). This contrast with ‘low’ which means ‘unlikely to occur’ and ‘high’ which means ‘very likely to occur.’

I also note the following definitions for language used within the report: ‘moderate violence’ is ‘acts such as punching, kicking or head-butting that are likely to result in temporary injury and warrant some form of medical intervention’, whereas ‘severe violence’ includes ‘acts of extreme violence such as strangulation, forceful blows to the head or striking with an object that are likely to result in serious or permanent injury, or death’. ‘Minor violence’ includes ‘acts such as grabbing pushing or slapping that are unlikely to leave a significant mark, result in injury or require medical attention.’

The summary of history provided in the report is fair and balanced. It recognises the forthcoming criminal trial as a complicating feature when considering transparency. The report identifies static factors and comments that these factors are the most reliable indicators of future perpetration of abuse with dynamic factors making small adjustments to the baseline risk. In the case of the father there are a high number of childhood related static factors which the father brings to the case and cannot now be changed. The factors also include adult decisions around criminal conduct, substance misuse, and partner domestic abuse.

The dynamic factors include attitude, understanding and insight and situational factors including housing, employment, and substance misuse. The static factors cannot be changed. The dynamic factors can be worked on through intervention and can be used to make small adjustments to the baseline level of risk. The report considered the dynamic factors in play at that time increased risk rather than reducing the same. These were (a) denial of allegations; (b) minimal insight; (c) ‘victim thinking;’ (d) limited empathy; and (e) the awaited trial. The report fairly recognises the potential for acts done to the father to contribute to his behaviour.

The report also fairly sets out positives relating to the father including, (a) his engagement with the assessment; (b) his love for his children; (c) his full embrace of his role as primary carer; (d) his engagement with professionals around support; (d) his work on remaining abstinent from hard drugs; and (e) his abstinence from cannabis.

The report concluded by noting the fact that certain matters remained unresolved and as such uncertainty remained. The expert concluded if the Court accepted the mother’s account of events then the father presented a substantial risk of severe physical harm to mother and children / a substantial risk of moderate emotional and psychological harm if no risk management measures are in place. However, if the father’s account were preferred he would pose a moderate risk of moderate harm.

The expert considered treatment viability (this is an essential part of the risk management referenced above – but also see below) and concluded with the current state of denial work would not be possible. However, the expert recognised the intersection between this report and the outstanding criminal trial and noted the potential for re-evaluation once that process was concluded. The report noted a willingness to engage.

In live evidence this remained the overarching view of the expert. I did not understand the expert to significantly modify his conclusions other than to accept my fact finding might create an environment in which re-evaluation might be attempted. The expert was clear a further assessment for suitability could be undertaken quickly followed if judged suitable by an 18-week bespoke programme. Overall work would take around 6-months. It is clear from reading the report that for the reasons given it would have been difficult to commence the work prior to the criminal trial.

The expert commented on the risk management plan were the parents to resume their relationship. He appears to have concluded it would be difficult to envision a plan that would generate safety in such a situation. I agree. There is a dynamic between the parents which means that each is vulnerable to the other and to the other’s behaviour and manipulation. Since separation whilst the father has remained single the mother has entered a further abusive relationship. Whereas the father has achieved abstinence the mother has continued to abuse substances.

At page 17 of his report the expert sets out the plan for the father. These include (a) continued separation from the mother; (b) continued engagement with substance support services with abstinence for at least 12 months; (c) engagement around alcohol use; (d) informing the applicant in respect of new relationships; (e) assessment for trauma-based therapy; (f) reassessment for a DV programme post criminal trial resolution. Whilst (f) is a fundamental part of the plan (a-e) are to some extent already in play.

Turning to the addendum this was provided having received some further documentation with respect to the January 2024 incident and in the light of the June 2025 HST. When considering the report, much of the previous history given is repeated in similar terms and the report concluded there had been no radical shift with regards to the father’s views and understanding. There is a distinction drawn with regards to a caution in 2013 and the perception the father may have underplayed this as being related to an incident of domestic abuse rather than third party non-intimate abuse. The addendum continued to reference the impending trial as a complicating feature. It maintained the benefits of trauma-based therapy given the reported history. The addendum was asked to specifically consider the HST and proceeded on the premise that it evidenced chronic excess consumption. The expert considered the Peth result might indicate the father ‘reducing his alcohol use in an attempt to obfuscate the scale of the problem.’ The father explained this by referencing occasions during the process when away from the children (and with them cared for by family members) he would drink to excess to the point where he would ‘pass out.’ The expert considered the HST was a significant concern when seen in the context of the case. The expert went on to speculate as to the father’s presentation the next morning when he returned home. I consider this is outside of the expertise of the expert. Finally, the expert was concerned as to the issue of honesty because of this result when taken against self-reporting. The report did not significantly modify the previous assessment or proposed risk management plan.

This evidence is important and I place reliance on it. I make the following points:

I do not dwell on this evidence. All parties accept the positive assessment of the aunt. I accept the report. It tells me that she would face practical challenges in caring for the children around housing but she is plainly a competent carer who is providing good care to her own children, has a strong bond to her nieces and would give them good enough care.

Again, in the context of her case this evidence, which does not support placement with her, does not demand the closest scrutiny. But I would note it is clear the mother has challenges which continue. There is good evidence she loves her children and wants to make progress to be the best mother she can be to them. I was overall impressed by her and found her a credible witness. I am confident she is now trying her best and there are grounds for hope that she will make further progress but I agree at this time her relationship with her children should be via contact. Her position in this regard is realistic and child focused.

This report is dated April 2025 and provides a cautiously optimistic report in favour of the father caring for the children. It is the foundation of the applicant’s final evidence for IRH in June 2025 which supported a final supervision order. It placed reliance on future DV work as part of a safety plan alongside family support and therapeutic work (which the father was referred to and has undergone). The up-to-date revised position of the social worker through her final evidence is in the light of the evidence as to HST results and the addendum DVACT report.

There is a justified concern as to the father’s housing situation. He lives with his mother and the children (and it seems with his older child who is cared for by the grandmother). The housing conditions are far from ideal in being crowded and requiring the father to share a room with the children. Improvements to this can be made but the position will remain difficult. I do not consider this of itself is grounds for transfer to the aunt given she will then have comparable housing difficulties.

Either way the solution is for the children to find new improved housing (whether with father or aunt). I have commented on the concerns above as to the reliance the father may have on family. I accept independent housing for the father will be a material change and has the potential to pose an additional challenge, but the evidence in this regard is not sufficient to reach a conclusion such as to impact on my decision making. I do consider it will be important for the father to be rehoused locally if this occurs to enable easy access to the support he would continue to have.

The father will face trial in August 2026 although experience tells me that date may not be guaranteed. I cannot and should not attempt to predict the outcome of that process but I am obliged to engage with the issue given those seeking a SGO rely upon it as a factor of relevance arguing the children may or will likely suffer instability if placed with the father if he were then to be convicted and incarcerated.

He will be sentenced for the criminal damage element to the charge. I very much doubt that would lead to a custodial sentence. The most serious allegation is that of non-fatal strangulation. I have made a finding on the balance of probabilities whereas a jury will need to be sure. The CPS and defence team will have access to this judgment and the evidence I received which may have implications for the trial. On my finding the father would be convicted of the assault charges. It may be he revises his position given the recently disclosed admission of an assault in the relevant screenshots.

So, I cannot predict the outcome of the trial process but based on my findings I suggest it is likely the father would be convicted of the assault. Taken with the criminal damage he may face a custodial sentence but that is far from certain given what may be his childcare responsibilities. If he is sent to prison this may not be for a significant period and it seems likely he would gain family support with the children during such time.

This means this is a point to be weighed in the analysis but is not an overpowering point in favour of an SGO.

I have a contact bundle. I heard some evidence as to whether the notes suggest a level of hostility on the part of the father to contact with the mother. I also heard some limited criticism of the father by the mother as to isolated contact occasions which did not go ahead.

Overall, I was not impressed by these points. I note the father’s evidence was clear that he both recognised the need for maternal contact and considered it was in the children’s welfare interests. He was positive about the mother as a mother, as she was about him as a father.

The negative evidence taken from the contact notes and which was incredibly limited in isolation did not justify the suggestion of parental alienation raised by the social worker. There is an obvious alternative explanation found in the meeting with the children to explain what is happening with them from which the child may have taken the information leading to the words used. But in any event the words used do not speak of the father acting in an alienating or indeed hostile manner towards the mother.

I was also not moved by the limited occasions on which contact with the mother did not occur. I bear in mind the large number of contact notes in this case under which the mother has had good contact with the children and I bear in mind the children have throughout the proceedings lived with their father under an interim lives with order, that he has been the sole decision maker on contact and that contact has occurred regularly and without meaningful issue. I can of course empathise with the mother’s wish to have had contact on special occasions but this does not change my analysis.

I am concerned with two still young children. They share the needs and requirements of all children of their age. They are dependent on their care giver for meeting their needs and enabling them to meet their developmental milestones. They are highly vulnerable to instability in their home environment as they pass through a developmentally important early childhood stage. This is a point in their lives where they are fixing attachments and building a sense of the world. It is this understanding gained through the care they receive now which will underpin their future childhoods and lives beyond.

As with all children they cannot afford for a significant person in their lives, and certainly not their caregiver to be impacted by substance abuse to the point where this makes the parent emotionally unavailable to them and causes that parent to have priorities outside of those of the children. They must be the parents focus at this point in their lives. This does not mean their care giver cannot have an independent life outside of care giving but it is important this is secondary to meeting their needs.

A life which incorporates domestic abuse as a component is inconsistent with their welfare. They can of course accept parental disagreement but not violence or abuse. The implications of such a lived experience are likely to be profound from the emotional damage of witnessing such behaviour (directly or indirectly) to the lifelong implications for modelling or embedding and normalising such behaviour. It would be unacceptable for these two girls to grow up accepting that violence from a man to a woman is an acceptable part of life. If they grow up believing that to be the case they are far more likely to accept it within their own adult lives. But if they witness their father, whom they love, act in this way how else will they make sense of that behaviour?

A further factor relates to their separation from their mother, who they love and the management of this relationship through their childhood. It is important they have a chance to progress this relationship when it is safe to do so and it is crucial such rebuilding is not a matter of challenge and dispute. It would be damaging for them to find themselves divided between their parents with an emotional responsibility to navigate the divide. It is important the development of their relationship with their mother does not coincide with a resumption of parental dispute.

As with all children they have crucial educational and physical needs to be met.

The risks in this case are as identified in the threshold and developed through the helpful report from DVACT. I accept the key components of the safety plan as sensible and necessary if the children are with the father. I accept the risks to the children will be reduced if with their aunt although given they will continue to have a significant relationship with both parents this would not be removed altogether.

It is not clear to me the extent to which the concerns around the father would be entirely addressed by a SGO in circumstances in which it seems likely his time with the children would remain generous. Ironically without the motivation of caring for the children the father may stray from the path he is currently on. I am in no doubt the aunt would act to shield the children but one cannot rule out an indirect impact from the same. But I am also confident the paternal family would act to protect the children were the father’s care to deteriorate.

I am obliged to consider the impact on the children of a change in living arrangements by moving from their father to their aunt. It may be challenging for the children to understand why this happened given the good care they are currently receiving. The professionals agree the father is their ‘psychological parent’ and such a move will have an emotional impact notwithstanding the good relationship they have with their aunt. If the professionals are right this would also come with a move from their grandmother’s home with some additional impact on them. In the case of the younger child, she has really known nothing other than living with her father. The older child is making good progress and I would not want this to be interrupted unless necessary.

These children are too young to have wishes and feelings that can carry weight in any analysis. But I bear in mind they are reported to be happy in their father’s care.

I have been asked to think about the implications for their relationship with their mother if with their father or aunt. I am confident the aunt would make this work. There has been a recent meeting between the two aimed to improve their relationship. I heard evidence of previous support from the paternal family which became more difficult due to the mother’s conduct but improvements have been made. I note the mother was clear in her position as to her support for the aunt.

The position regarding the father needs to be considered in the light of the contact during the proceedings and the need for future interactions to be managed other than by the father. I suspect the aunt (or other family) may in fact be the managers of contact whoever cares for the children. In this way it may be seen that the actual placement decision is not particularly impactful on contact. I do accept the evidence of the father as to his support for contact. I have reflected on whether this gives grounds for concern as to reconciliation. On the evidence I have received through this hearing that seems unlikely.

When thinking about the range of orders I am clear an order is required. In balancing the options, I give no presumed advantage to the father. The test is good enough care and the paramountcy of the children’s welfare.

I consider this case finely balanced. In this regard I disagree with the guardian. Having considered all the evidence placed before me I have decided the outcome most consistent with the children’s welfare is to continue the current arrangement supported by a 1-year supervision order. I will return to my views as to the components of this supervision order but I will first explain why I have reached this conclusion and why it is that I disagree with the professionals.

First, I give full regard to the good care the children are currently receiving and indeed have been receiving since the proceedings commenced. The evidence is that this is not simply good basic care but instead good quality care. I have noted the evidence from the nursery but this is the evidence of all the professionals who have met with the children since these proceedings commenced. I recognise it may have surprised the professionals that the father has been able to achieve and sustain this but the fact is he has done so and this must be given appropriate weight. It should not be assumed this derives from third party care when the same is not evidenced as being the case.

Importantly, this speaks not only as to the care that has been given but as to a range of supporting factors. He has been able to prioritise their needs over other challenges and has been motivated by his responsibilities. Whilst the litigation may have been a motivating factor I am not persuaded this care can be explained as a function of the proceedings with it likely to fall away thereafter.

Secondly, I give weight to the support network around the father. Any single parent will require support and it should not be viewed as a negative that this has been available and drawn upon. However, any suggestion that the children have been receiving substituted parenting has not been evidenced. This is a case in which the father lives with his mother and she is bound to have been a support. He has a close relationship with his sisters and they will have been a further piece of scaffolding around the children. The proposed special guardian attended court on the 2^nd and 3^rd day of the hearing and it is clear they have a supportive relationship. In many cases of this kind, the challenges of the parent derive from their own historic family care and so support is often unavailable. That is not the case here. I consider it is likely this support will continue beyond the proceedings and it is an important safeguarding feature. I see no reason to view this support as a negative for the father. It is an important positive.

Thirdly, I give weight to the steps taken by the father to address his substance abuse. This evidence was impressive and deserves recognition. It speaks as to his capability when motivated and his ability to both sustain change and work with professionals. It is a matter of significance that he remains abstinent from hard drugs and has shown sustained commitment to a depot regime. Equally is a matter of real note that he has abstained from cannabis and shown an ability to stop drinking when required to do so within these proceedings. Taken together these points cannot be overlooked. Of course, risks remain but in a case of this nature a decision must be made as to whether progress is demonstrated or not. Failing this one falls back on static factors and one ends up effectively determining the case on the facts which brought the case to the court’s attention. To minimise progress in this case would amount to an unbalanced assessment.

Fourthly, I take account of the absence of police reports or allegations during these proceedings. Further, there is no reported contact between parents.

Finally, I have had regard to the work the father has undertaken. In contrast to many cases before me this work is at a high level and is a strong indicator of his motivation and commitment to change. The father gave evidence as to the positive impact this has had for him. I accepted his evidence as genuine and reflective.

The points noted above are strong factors in support of the father’s case. I accept there are balancing features as follows.

First, whilst I have not accepted the suggestion of chronic excess alcohol use I do accept there will have been occasions during the proceedings when the father has drunk to an excessive level. He admits the same. This is likely to account for the results we have. But I bear in mind on such occasions he had provided care for the children within his family and there is no associated misconduct linked to these occasions. In my assessment alcohol and domestic abuse are correlated in the case rather than having a causative relationship. By this I mean when the father is in a relationship and challenges arise then the presence of alcohol increases the risk of abuse and on occasion will have played a significant part in leading to abuse. In contrast when out of a relationship the father can demonstrate consumption without being provoked into abusive acts. The important distinction is that such drinking does not flow from a dependence on his part and when challenged over such drinking he has been able to abstain in response to the challenge.

Second, I accept the foundations of the DV report. At this point in time the father has continued to deny responsibility for what he has done and has minimised and deflected. It will remain an open question as to whether he will review his position and engage with a future assessment in a more open manner. It is an open question as to whether he will be adjudged suitable for programme of work as will the outcome of such a process remain a matter of speculation. But the points above suggest he will ‘engage’ given a chance and I am not entirely doubtful as to the prospects of him reflecting on my findings and engaging on such terms openly. It may be this still needs to await the criminal trial given the residual risks that may be felt to arise on any formal acceptance pre-trial. However, the issues in dispute may be narrowing in the light of the developing evidence.

Third I accept there remains uncertainty about housing and with regards to future relationships. In my assessment it is important for the father to make progress with regards to his acceptance and insight regarding his role in the domestic abuse within his relationships if he is to guard his children against a repeat of the same in future. I accept he may face a custodial sentence but this does not deflect me from my conclusion given there is a default package of care before the Court.

I have balanced these competing points and concluded the existing positives are such that I should maintain care with the father. I have placed weight on factors which have been given insufficient weight by others (i.e. the positive support available not being a negative; the sustained control of substances as opposed to the suggestion of reliance on substances; the good quality care given as opposed to basic care; the works undertaken which I have taken account of but were not fully addressed with the father before conclusions were reached). In the opposite direction I reached a differing conclusion as to excess alcohol and this had implications for my assessment of the suggested dishonesty of the father with respect to the same. Finally, whilst I am not so far from the professionals so far as the DVACT conclusion is concerned it is important to note by my findings I have (a) calibrated the level of risk to a lower category and (b) in doing so find the prospects of future engagement greater.

I would have had no hesitation in placing the children with their aunt were this the right answer. Her role in their lives continues and is an important feature of the care the father can give.

I have reflected on the competing options of placement with the aunt or father. Whilst the former has the attraction of offering greater confidence regarding the risk factors in the case the latter has the benefit of evidence of continuing good care and avoids the impact on the children of having to move. The positives the aunt offers do not disappear if the children remain with their father. Ultimately the evidence suggests the father is currently providing good enough care and I can see no justified basis for changing this situation.

I have considered the four questions posed in §7 above. The risks in the case are clearly identified within this judgment subject to the recalibration at §111. In assessing likelihood, I have had regard to the sustained period without report and during which there has been focused care of the children. I have accepted the parents’ relationship has ended and I have given weight to the father’s willingness to engage in a programme of work. I acknowledge the potential harm were there to be a relapse would be emotionally and potentially physically damaging for the children. Ultimately, I consider the situation is one in which a number of the protective measures (see the risk management plan) are already in place or can be imposed without delay. The outstanding matter is the undertaking of a DV programme. Whilst there is no guarantee as to the future completion of such a programme there is a basis for optimism and in any event I fall back on the broad package of measures that could be maintained in place irrespective of such a programme.

I appreciate the supervision order will be made in favour of the new designated local authority. It is imperative funding is provided to progress a programme of domestic abuse work. Whether this is with DVACT pursuant to a successful assessment or otherwise there is need for this to be done. It would be inconsistent for the local authority to make a case based on a need for work and then not to engage in the provision of the same when called upon. There is a need for a structure around contact between mother and children to prevent any need for the father to be involved. In the first instance this is likely to be supervised or supported professionally but a time may come when this is facilitated through the paternal family. I have no issue with the contact proposals placed before me. There should be a written agreement incorporating points made by DVACT and I consider it would be helpful for signatories to the same to include family members if they are willing. The father should continue with his support and I recommend a further course of CBT as proposed. I would expect the local authority to provide appropriate sign posting and support when the time comes for the father to seek independent housing.

I would like to pay tribute to the neighbour who gave evidence. Irrespective of my findings he showed real courage and public spirit in intervening in the manner he did. It is far too easy to look the other way when events of this nature occur. It is a testament to his character that he did not. He has the court’s thanks. I expect the applicant to extract this paragraph from the judgment and copy them to him with my thanks.

This judgment will now be copied to the advocates. It can be shared with their professional and lay clients. I have agreed to hand down this judgment on 30 January 2026 at 9.30am. Can I have any corrections, requests for clarification and proposed redactions (other than to the front page) by 4pm on 28 January 2026. I will then send out an open and anonymous final copy in advance of handing down.