LM (A Child) (Interim Welfare Arrangements)

This is an application by a young person (LM), a boy aged 15 years and 7 months. The application was made on 14 November 2025 in the High Court. The First Respondent, MM, is LM’s mother (the M), the Second Respondent, FM, is LM’s father (the F). LM has been assessed as being competent to engage in litigation by his solicitor, Ms Peggy Ray, who is an extremely experienced children’s solicitor.

The Applicant, LM, is represented by Jo Delahunty KC and Chris Stevenson who are instructed by Peggy Ray of Goodman Ray Solicitors. The First Respondent, MM, is represented by Justin Ageros who is instructed by Beck Fitzgerald. The Second Respondent, FM is represented by Luka Maxted-Page who is instructed on a public direct access basis. The Local Authority accommodating LM at the time of the hearing, were invited to attend at this hearing and were represented by Ms Amonoo-Acquah

I write this judgment in the expectation that LM will wish to read it and in my view, he should be allowed to do so if he so wishes.

This application is made by LM himself, but the background lies in the very long standing disputes between the parents. In December 2019 when LM was aged 10, District Judge G Smith made a child arrangements order that LM, and his sister “X” who was born in 2007 and is now 18, live with his father and was to have no contact with his mother.

LM had no face-to-face contact with his mother between late 2019 and 13 November 2025, when he left FM’s house and moved to MM. He was then removed by the police and placed, initially in police protective custody, and then from 15^th November up to the time of this hearing in foster care’

The M applied on 4 April 2025 to reopen DJ’s Smith’s findings. Her application was founded on the fact that DJ Smith’s findings and order were in large part based on a psychological assessment by Ms Melanie Gill, which concluded that the MM had “alienated” the children from FM, and that this assessment was fundamentally flawed. Unfortunately, the first hearing on MM’s application was not heard in Medway Family Court until November 2025. It was then transferred to the High Court. MM’s application is to be heard by the President of the Family Division on 29-30 January 2026.

The matter before me in this judgment is where LM should live now. My focus is therefore on LM’s current best interests rather than what may have gone wrong in the past, a matter for the PFD when considering MM’s application.

I heard this matter on 27 November 2025 and announced my decision at the end of the hearing, but reserved my reasons, given the urgency of the situation. At the hearing I heard submissions from all parties, and I spoke to LM, by WhatsApp video, during the lunch adjournment. Ms Ray was in attendance during that meeting.

Private law proceedings concerning LM and his older sister (X) took place between 6 August 2018 and 18 May 2020. During those proceedings Ms Gill was appointed as an expert and produced an assessment. Both parents asserted that they were the victims of domestic abuse, however on the basis of Ms Gill’s evidence the Court determined that there was no need for a fact finding hearing.

The children had been living with the M and having some contact with the F. On 18 May 2020 was an order providing that LM should live with the F; have no contact with the M; and the M was prohibited from removing LM from the F’s care or contacting him directly or indirectly.

Ms Gill produced a long report, upon which I will make no comment. However, it is clear that DJ Smith’s conclusions were very heavily based upon Ms Gill’s report. The summary of these conclusions are;

This is important for present purposes because it is apparent that the decision to move the children’s residence and to prohibit the M from having any contact whatsoever with the children was based on findings of “parental alienation” within Ms Gill’s report, rather than on any other significant risks posed by the M to the children.

In March 2021 the M applied to vary the child arrangements order. That application was dismissed by Recorder McAllister on 7 April 2022.

On 15 April 2025 the M applied to seek to reopen and set aside DJ Smith’s findings and to vary the child arrangements order. Unfortunately, due to delays in the Dartford Family Court, the application was not listed before 10 November 2025. At that hearing the case was transferred to the High Court.

At the heart of the M’s application is criticism of Ms Gill’s assessment and of DJ Smith for relying upon it. Ms Gill’s reports have now been central to a number of judicial decisions. In O v C [2025] EWFC 334 Judd J rejected the approach to findings based on Ms Gill’s assessment rather than factual findings of alienation, see [29]. This in turn was based on the analysis of Sir Andrew McFarlane P in Re C (Parental Alienation: Instruction of Expert [2023] EWHC 345.

In Re C, the name of the expert is anonymised to “Ms A”. However, I have been shown an order of Peel J dated 22 September 2022 which states that Ms Gill can be named as the expert. Further Ms Hannah Summers, a journalist who reported upon Re C and wishes to report upon the present case, showed me a series of emails from the Judicial Office in which she was told she could name Ms Gill as the expert. It is therefore now in the public domain that Ms Gill is the expert, “Ms A” referred to in Re C.

The M’s April 2025 application, which will be heard by the PFD in January 2026, is firmly based on this caselaw, as applied to DJ Smith’s decision and Ms Gill’s report in the case before him.

In January 2025, X left the F’s care and moved to live with M. X was at the time 17. She has since that date returned to live with the F. In the report drawn up by the social worker for today’s hearing there is reference to X’s position, which I refer to below.

I have limited evidence, and make no findings, about the degree to which LM has had indirect (electronic) contact with the M in 2025. It certainly appears that LM and the M were, at times, in contact from March 2025 onwards.

On Thursday 13 November 2025 LM left his F’s care (in Berkshire) and was driven, apparently by a friend of the M, to the M’s house (in Kent). He instructed Ms Ray on that day to make an application to the court to allow him to live with his M. The F contacted the Police as LM was missing and the Police removed LM from the M’s house at 4am on the morning of Friday 14 November. LM refused to return to his F, and he was placed in police emergency accommodation.

Ms Ray made an urgent application to the High Court on 14 November and it came before me in the urgent applications list that afternoon. LM continued to refuse to return to his F’s home and said he wanted to go to the M. The F strongly opposed LM living with the M. The M, represented at the urgent hearing by Mr Ageros, wished LM to be placed with her, but alternatively put forward a friend of the M’s (Ms W) and the mother of one of LM’s friends. The F opposed Ms W on the grounds that she was not a “neutral” party. I invited the parents to agree that LM could remain in Local Authority accommodation until the matter could return to court the following week, which the F reluctantly agreed.

The matter then returned to court on 18 November before Poole J, when he listed it back before me on 27 November 2025.

In the meantime LM has remained being accommodated by West Berkshire Council. In the time he has been in foster care, a little under two weeks, he has had three moves of placements. It is clear both from Ms Ray’s statement, and from my short meeting with him, that he is extremely unhappy in foster care.

West Berkshire were invited by the Court to carry out an interim viability assessment of Ms W, and of the maternal grandmother, and to provide the court with an updated assessment. I am extremely grateful to Ms Laffin, the social worker, who has carried out a detailed and thorough consideration in very little time and produced a very helpful report. The IVA of Ms W was produced during the hearing.

Ms Laffin spoke to both parents and to LM. The report also refers to a conversation with X, although it is not clear whether that was with Ms Laffin or another social worker.

F and his partner described their efforts to support LM and help him to integrate into their family (they have a young child). Ms Laffin said “However, they feel that [LM] has not invested in a life with them and remains emotionally distant…[They] expressed concerns about LM’s well being noting that he has no social circle outside of online gaming and how he spends most of his time at home alone in his room.” They then told Ms Laffin that LM wears noise cancelling headphones around the house and does not interact in the house. They noted a decline in his attitude towards them from March 2025. They also referred to LM not engaging in the therapy which was supposed to take place when he first moved to them (5 years earlier).

The F and his partner opposed LM being placed with Ms W because they felt she was too aligned with the M’s position. They supported him remaining in foster care.

The M went back over the history and spoke about the domestic abuse that she alleged she suffered during the relationship. She said it was the children who had been resistant to contact with the F. She said she had had no contact with the children until X arrived at her door in January 2025. LM had been aware of the hearing in Dartford Family Court in November 2025 and had contacted the M. I note that it is not clear how LM was aware of the hearing, and certainly the F is convinced that the M told LM about it.

The M told Ms Laffin that she strongly believed that the only arrangement in LM’s best interests was for him to live with her.

LM “expressed a clear and unwavering preference to live with his mother”. He stated in the clearest terms that he would not return to his father and would leave if he was placed back with him. LM said that the F and stepmother are frequently angry and set out a series of complaints against them. These are of a range of seriousness, but as all parties agree that it is not realistic, or in LM’s best interests, for him to return to his F, I am not going to recount those complaints. Not least because I feel that to do so would not help in the rebuilding of relationships in the longer term.

Importantly, LM was very keen to convey his views to the social worker. He expressed significant distrust towards professionals, feeling that they (both social workers and lawyers) had misrepresented his views. The following passage is in my view particularly relevant:

“[LM] presented very defeated and sceptical about the likelihood of professionals supporting his wishes. He repeatedly stated, after sharing a view, that no one will believe him and that his views will be dismissed as being influenced by his mother. He was distrusting of the adults around him and dismissed remarks about them caring for him, even though they were invested in his welfare. This is reflected in how he suggested he could be monitored by his foster carers and school staff, which he believes would result in information being fed back to professionals and the courts. [LM] shared that he has limited means of communicating with his solicitor and feels unable to trust anyone to assist him due to past experiences.”

Ms Laffin’s report also contains information from X. As set out in the excerpt below, X was spoken to by a second social worker, Ms Lees, who completed the Child Protection enquiry in this case. X had left the F’s home in January 2025 to live with the M, but then returned to the F in March 2025. X is reported as follows;

“[X] fears her mother is ‘living in her own head’ and that she has farfetched conspiracy theories about people being ‘out for her’. [X] made reference to her mum still texting her telling her that her dad is still stalking her, which is not true. [X] says they are not being filmed at home, [LM] did have live 360 for a while and said this was controlling and it is now [LM] that is recording conversations.

[X] did not feel she was able to have her own perspective about her family’s circumstances and when she did not ‘perform’ for her mother, she was verbally aggressive towards her. [The M] would tell [X] that she had been brainwashed when she tried to present a differing narrative, but [X] did not want the ‘drama’ and is happy with who she is. This made [X] really confused about who she was and caused a decline in her mental health, which her mother responded to through goading her to kill herself.

I have been played voice recordings of the conflicts and advised that there have been police reports in which allegations have been made of a physical nature. I await the formal reports to confirm this.

Within discussion with Joanne Lees, [X] has said, ‘that she does not think that her mum was in a place to deal with anything, she says that [the M] was really affected by the court case and this was her whole life, [X] commented that she does not think her mum will ever change and lives purely for the court case and trying to prove everyone wrong.

[X] also believed her mother struggled to accept her as a young adult and was holding on to the memory of her as a young child. This manifested in [the M] making derogatory sexual remarks about [X’s] body.”

I have set out X’s views at some length because they are important in deciding where LM should live now.

Ms Laffin set out a very detailed analysis and recommendations section. Her recommendation was that LM remains in foster care until the New Year, with gradually increased contact with the M. She recommended against LM going to live with the M because:

“Due to [the M’s] preoccupation with getting legal vilification and due to her using [LM] and attempts to use [X] in her pursuits, the parental alienation remains live and is already hindering [LM’s] relationships and world view in which it is causing an intense sense of distrust, paranoia and similar preoccupation in uncovering the truth about his lived experiences.”

After Ms Laffin’s report was produced the LA produced an Interim Viability Assessment of Ms W. Ms W and her husband are the parents of LM’s close friend at school when he was living in Kent. They had got to know LM’s parents. She had not seen LM for 6 years, but had briefly communicated with him when he had been gaming with her son. She had given a statement in the previous proceedings in support of the M. I have read that statement and in my view it is a balanced and perfectly reasonable document. It does not suggest an inability by Ms W to take an objective stance on the situation LM finds himself in.

The conclusion of the IVA is;

“Overall, from this initial assessment, I do not see anything significant which would prevent [Ms W and her husband] suitability being explored further. I would recommend that [Ms W and her husband] progress to a full kinship assessment to further explore the points above.”

The potential challenges highlighted in the report are Ms W’s ability to balance her friendship with the M with directions from the court about LM’s contact, and that she does not think there is any risk posed to LM by the M. The report gives me confidence that Ms W would abide by whatever orders the court makes about LM’s contact with the M.

Ms Delahunty’s primary submission was that LM should be allowed to live with the M. He had been assessed as was of sufficient understanding and competent and that was his strongly held, and consistent wish. As a fallback position she supported LM living with Ms W but having contact with the M.

The M’s position was the same, LM should live with her but if not, he should be with Ms W but with contact with the M.

Mr Ageros submitted that the DJ Smith’s grounds for preventing contact with the M were entirely based on Ms Gill’s assessment. There was no other evidence of safeguarding concerns that would justify LM not living with the M, or at the very least having unsupervised contact with her. He relied on the conclusions of the PFD in Re C and Judd J in O v C. He also referred to the concerns expressed by the Victim’s Commissioner on 26 October 2025 about the reliance that has been placed on Ms Gill’s reports. He criticised the LA for continuing to rely on, or at least refer to, Ms Gill’s report in this case given that LM is now 15 and a half and the report is 5 years old.

The M put forward a safety plan for the reintroduction of contact, if the Court was not prepared to simply place LM in her care.

The F opposed LM living with the M, or with Ms W. His position through the morning of the hearing was that LM should remain in foster care, at least until the hearing on 29 January 2026, and should not have contact with the M. He referred to the M’s conduct in breaching the Prohibited Steps Order by contacting LM in 2025, and encouraging LM to communicate with her friend, who had then driven him to the M’s house.

The F sought for a registered psychologist to undertake a psychological and neurodevelopmental assessment of LM. Mr Maxted Page told me that the F thought LM was neurodiverse. I note that there is no evidence of the school, or any other professional raising this concern. The F said that LM was showing signs of paranoia, believing that he was being tracked by the F.

By the latter part of the hearing the F accepted that LM should live with Ms W, but opposed any contact that was not professionally supervised with the M.

West Berkshire’s position before the start of the hearing was that LM should remain in foster care with incremental supervised contact with the M. A s.37 report should be directed. During the course of the hearing the IVA of Ms W was produced and by the end of the hearing Ms Amonoo-Acquah on behalf of the Local Authority was supporting LM moving to Ms W, subject to a full DBS check and senior manager approval of the IVA, and senior officer approval.

I have to apply the welfare checklist in s. 1 of the Children Act 1989. It is not necessary to expressly set out the various considerations, but I refer to all the key ones below.

I do not intend to comment on Ms Gill’s report, or the findings of DJ Smith in 2020. Those are matters for the M’s application and the PFD’s decision.

The position I am faced with is that LM is now 15 years and 7 months and will be 16 in April 2026. He is now assessed to be of sufficient understanding and competent. The factual situation, focusing on LM rather than his parents, is now very different from when he was 10 years old. LM is adamant that he will not return to his father, and it would be entirely wrong and contrary to his best interests to try to make him do so.

There are then three options for where LM lives at least until further order and probably until he is 16 – foster care, the Mother or Ms W and her family. LM is palpably unhappy in foster care. He has had to move three times in three weeks, through absolutely no fault of his own. In my view foster care is a very poor option for LM, unless the other options are significantly worse for him. One benefit of foster care is that LM could remain at his present school. However, I understand the school has agreed to keep LM on roll and to provide him with remote work. It seems highly likely that his educational needs can be met in this way, even if it does not prove possible for him to move schools at this point in the school calendar. I note that his social engagement in school, certainly in the last few months seems to have been quite limited.

The F submitted until part way through the hearing that LM should remain in foster care and that he should be subject to an assessment focusing on neurodiversity. I decline to order any such assessment. Firstly, nobody else who has engaged with LM has raised the possibility of him being neurodiverse. In particular neither his school nor the social worker who interviewed him has raised such an issue. Secondly, LM is quite understandably hostile to professionals and to the Court process. It is hard to see how further assessment will assist LM in this regard. Thirdly, even if LM was shown to have traits of neurodiversity, I cannot see that it would be likely to make any difference to the outcome of the case. LM has strong and clearly expressed views, the reasons for those views are, by this stage somewhat secondary. I therefore decline to order such an assessment.

I am however concerned about LM being placed directly to live with the M. He has not lived with the M for over 5 years. It is apparent from Ms Laffin’s report, and what X has said, that the M is, unsurprisingly, extremely emotionally engaged in the Court processes and what she perceives as the injustices of Ms Gill’s report and its impact. Even with the best of intentions and full effort, it would be very difficult for her not to wish to bring LM into that narrative and into her perception of the past.

My view is that LM needs some emotional space from both parents, and from the pressures that both place upon him. This is not intended as a criticism of either parent, but there can be no doubt that LM has been harmed over many years by the level of parental conflict. I do not think it is in his best interests to move directly into his M’s care, where it is almost inevitable he will be placed under enormous emotional pressure. Whether that is described as “alienation” or not, LM needs some opportunity to re-establish a relationship with his mother, but with the benefit of some time and space. I hope that by living for a time with Ms W but having increasing contact with the M that will allow the relationship to develop on a reasonably secure footing, and prevent LM from going through the same “ping-pong” between parents as has happened with X.

I note LM’s enthusiasm when speaking to me about being placed with Ms W and his family. I accept the LA concern that Ms W and her family may not be wholly “neutral”, but in terms of the impact on LM the “risks” to his emotional wellbeing are considerably less than being left in foster care against his will. I hope that the fact that LM is friends with Ms W’s son will mean LM is able to enjoy time without either parent, and perhaps in a more normal teenage environment.

This may be unduly optimistic, but I would strongly encourage LM to re-engage with his father, if only by telephone. But re-building that relationship has to be a matter for encouragement and not coercion.

In reaching this judgement I am acutely conscious that LM is nearly 16 years old. A private law order could only be made when he is 16 if there are “exceptional” reasons. A competent 16 year is in general allowed to exercise autonomy over their own life. It is plain having spoken to him that LM feels very strongly that his wishes and feelings, and his voice, have not been listened to by the courts or the professionals. I have to balance his right to be heard and his best interests.

My conclusion is that those best interests are met by LM living with Ms W and her family for the next few months and having gradually increased contact with the M, initially supervised by Ms W but leading up to unsupervised contact. The detail of this is set out in the order.