BAILII
British and Irish Legal Information Institute


Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information

[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges)


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges) >> Z Local Authority v SC & Ors (Placement with Drug Addict: Care Order at Home) [2025] EWFC 149 (B) (03 June 2025)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2025/149.html
Cite as: [2025] EWFC 149 (B)

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
WARNING: This judgment was delivered in private. The judge has given leave for this version of the judgment to be published on condition that (irrespective of what is contained in the judgment) in any published version of the judgment the anonymity of the children and members of their family must be strictly preserved. All persons, including representatives of the media, must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so will be a contempt of court.
Neutral Citation Number: [2025] EWFC 149 (B)
CASE NO: ZC24C50131

IN THE CENTRAL FAMILY COURT

First Avenue House
42-49 High Holborn
London
Handed Down In Final Version On 3 June 2025

B e f o r e :

HER HONOUR JUDGE ROBERTSON
____________________

Between:
The London Borough of X
(applicant)
- and -

SC
(First Respondent father)
SE
(Second Respondent father)
O and Y
(Third and Fourth Respondents, by their children's Guardian Erika Endlein)
Z Local Authority v SC and Ors (Placement with Drug Addict: Care Order at home)

____________________

Isabelle Watson of Counsel appeared on behalf of the Applicant
Emily Beer of Counsel appeared on behalf of the First Respondent
Kathryn Blair of Counsel appeared on behalf of the Second Respondent
Kelly Wilde, Solicitor, appeared on behalf of the Third and Fourth Respondents

____________________

HTML VERSION OF JUDGMENT
____________________

Crown Copyright ©

    Parties and application

  1. The children at the centre of this case are O, a boy aged 15 and Y, a girl aged 13. They currently live with their father, SC. Y has until recently spent supervised time with her other father SE; for the last year and more, O has refused to do so.
  2. The application is the Local Authority's application for supervision orders, dated 27 February 2024. The Local Authority is represented by Isabelle Watson of counsel. SC is represented by Emily Beer of counsel. SE is represented by Kathryn Blair of counsel. The children are represented by Kelly Wilde, solicitor, through their children's Guardian Erika Endlein.
  3. Background

  4. O and Y are children who have been described by the Guardian as being particularly resilient, and in view of their background, they have had to be so. In August 2013 they were made subject to care and placement orders when it was concluded that they could not receive safe care from their birth parents due to issues relating to drug use and domestic violence. They were placed into the care of their adoptive fathers, SC and SE in August 2014. Unfortunately, the fathers separated in June 2015, but at that stage they were able to agree that the children would live with SE and spend time with SC. Adoption orders were granted in the full knowledge of the fathers' separation in June 2016. By that stage a 50:50 shared care arrangement was in place. The fathers' relationship since separation has been described as toxic. There have been two sets of private law proceedings and lengthy involvement by the Local Authority. There were concerns about both fathers using illicit drugs. Further concerns arose in relation to SE's care of the children and in 2024 the court made a Lives With order in favour of SC with the children to spend time with SE on alternate weekends and Wednesday evenings.
  5. Since that time the children's relationship with SE has deteriorated, and concerns in relation to SC's drug use in particular have grown.
  6. There is an agreed Threshold in this case dated 30 January 2025 in which the following matters (in summary) are accepted by the fathers:
  7. a. SC has used diazepam, amphetamine, cocaine, ketamine, MDMA, methamphetamines and consumed a chronic excessive level of alcohol and as a result the children have suffered and are at risk of suffering significant emotional harm and neglect in his care
    b. The children have had to take on care tasks during SC's "bad days"
    c. SC has been physically and emotionally unavailable to the children when using substances
    d. SE also has a history of using amphetamine, methamphetamine, GHB and prescription drugs
    e. The children have suffered emotional harm as a result of SE's inappropriate behaviour towards them specifically on one occasion trimming Y's pubic hair
    f. Both fathers have caused the children significant emotional harm by exposing them to their volatile, acrimonious and toxic relationship.

  8. It was against this background that the Local Authority initiated public law proceedings. The children have stayed in SC's care throughout proceedings, under an interim supervision order since 21 March 2024. Surprisingly, given the background, it is common ground among the professionals that these resilient children are thriving in SC's care, doing well at school and socially. It is the Guardian's view, and mine, that they have received some very good parenting somewhere along the way from these two fathers.
  9. Positions of the parties

  10. The Local Authority's final care plan dated 31 March 2025 supported children staying with SC under a 12-month supervision order, given that the children appeared to be thriving in his care, they were clear they wanted to stay with him and the Local Authority considered the risks of staying were outweighed by risk of emotional harm if removed. However since reading SC's statement dated 14 April 2025 which explained that an intruder called X had come into SC's flat approximately eight times, and receiving further information within the police disclosure which showed that two of these intrusions had been reported, and one of them involved X throwing a knife, the local authority considered the balance of risk was reversed. They changed their care plan, their final position being that they sought removal of the children to foster care under full care orders.
  11. SC opposes the removal of the children. He wishes them to remain with him and will work with the Local Authority under any order the court imposes, though his preference is for a Supervision Order.
  12. SE supports the Local Authority's position, and also wishes for a contact order for Y to have contact with him, and a Specific Issue Order to ensure that he is kept updated about the children.
  13. The Guardian was unable to make a final recommendation until she had heard the oral evidence. After hearing it, she made what she called a "very finely balanced decision" to support the children remaining in SC's care with a very tight safety plan. She recommends a Care Order at home rather than a supervision order.
  14. Meeting the children

  15. I also had the privilege of meeting the children in advance of the IRH. They came into court and spent some time with me, with their Guardian and solicitor. A note of the meeting was circulated. They were impressive: engaged and engaging, obviously intelligent, they clearly understood the nature of these proceedings, and wanted to tell me their views themselves. They have also written to me twice and in addition the Guardian has told me their views.
  16. Assessments

  17. Dr Tosin Bowen-Wright, consultant clinical psychologist, undertook a global psychological assessment of this family. She found that O and Y had a strong attachment to each other and have been each other's strength, being protective of each other. She was concerned and bewildered at the father's inability to be civil to each other for the sake of the children. She said they had drawn O and Y into their conflict and exposed them to the intensity of their own anguish, causing significant emotional and psychological harm and trauma. This has likely created an immense sense of insecurity in relation to the care they are receiving despite the choices they have expressed. She said "It is incredibly unfortunate for O and Y that they were taken out of a traumatic, neglectful and emotionally abusive home environment and adopted into another. In my professional opinion they have learned to make the best of a bad situation".
  18. ISW Sarah Cockley conducted a parenting assessment of SE. She did not recommend placement of the children with SE. She noted that SE's behaviour during contact with Y had raised significant concerns, and recommended contact should remain supervised. That recommendation was made before Y had begun to refuse contact. Ms Cockley did not recommend contact between SE and O but said O needed to focus on himself and work through his experiences, and then some reparative work should be done on the relationship.
  19. Ms Cockley also conducted a parenting assessment of SC. She recommended that the children remain in his care subject to a further hair strand test being done. She said this was a plan which held a high level of risk because SC was in the early stages of sobriety and abstinence and that a high level of support and monitoring would be needed.
  20. This hearing

  21. Threshold was agreed in advance of this final hearing. At the IRH, with the Local Authority and the Guardian both supporting the children remaining at home, the 5-day final hearing was reduced to a 2-day final hearing to deal primarily with the issues of contact to SE. That was before details were known about the repeated intrusions of a stranger into SC's flat. Once those details were known and the Local Authority changed its care plan the matter became fully contested again. This posed a challenge, as by that stage there were only two days of court time available, unless the matter was postponed for a significant period. The parties alerted me to the problem in good time and I was able to make arrangements for judicial reading to be done in advance, for the two available days to be used for oral evidence, for the parties to do written submissions and for me to hand down this written judgment after that. Not all parties agreed with that plan: SC applied for an adjournment because he felt that two days was not enough but I refused that application. I went on to hear evidence on 30 April and 1 May 2025 from
  22. a. The social worker IL
    b. SC
    c. SE
    d. The Guardian

  23. The parties all produced written submissions for which I thank them, and I am now giving this written judgment only two weeks after the evidence concluded.
  24. The law

  25. The threshold for making public law orders is plainly crossed on the basis of the matters set out in the agreed Threshold document dated 30 January 2025 at B285 of the bundle.
  26. The remaining decisions I must make are welfare decisions. The children's welfare must be my paramount consideration, and I must consider all the elements of the Children Act 1989 Welfare Checklist (s1(3)).
  27. In considering whether to make a final care order I must undertake a global holistic assessment of all the realistic options as set out in Re B-S (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 1146.
  28. I must also consider Article 6 and Article 8 of the ECHR. Any order that I make must be necessary and proportionate, and I must not make any order unless I consider that doing so is better for the child than making no order at all.
  29. The parties have drawn my attention to the following cases:
  30. a. JW (Child at Home under Care Order) [2023] EWCA Civ 944 which emphasises that there must be "exceptional reasons" to make a care order at home. It should only be made where it is necessary for the protection of the child, and it will be "rare in the extreme" for the risks of significant harm to be high enough to merit the making of a care order while being capable of being managed at home. That case also reminds the court that the difference between removing children from home under a care order or under a supervision order is "largely procedural".
    b. Re B (Care Proceedings [2013] UKSC 33 in which Hale LJ set out: "we are all frail human beings, with our fair share of unattractive character traits, which sometimes manifest themselves in bad behaviours which may be copied by our children. But the State does not and cannot take away the children of all the people who commit crimes, who abuse alcohol or drugs, who suffer from physical or mental illness or disabilities, or who espouse anti-social political or religious beliefs" [143]
    c. T (Children: Risk Assessment) [2025] EWCA Civ 93 which reminds the court that risk must be identified, but must then be analysed in terms of likelihood, impact, management of risk and other welfare considerations. A helpful checklist is set out by Jackson LJ at paragraph 33, and he goes on to say that "it must be remembered that risk assessment is about realistic assessment of risk, not about elimination of all risks".
    d. Re HW [2022] UKSC 17 which states that the aim must be to make the least interventionist order possible.

  31. The parties have also drawn my attention to the guidance of the Public Law Working Group (PLWG) 2023 report on best practice in relation to Supervision Orders. That report sets out principles to be applied to make Supervision Orders more effective. My attention is drawn to the endorsement of the report by the President Sir Andrew McFarlane in Re JW (ibid) in which he says that a care order should never be used solely as a vehicle to achieve the provision of support and services, he reiterates the rarity of a care order at home and says that other than in an exceptional case some other means of providing support and services must be used, and that a supervision order may be proportionate where a child is placed at home. He says that where a supervision order is made, the PLWG guidance should be applied.
  32. Issues

  33. The issues I have to address are
  34. a. What are the risks to the children of remaining with SC?
    b. Can those risks be managed?
    c. What are the risks to the children of being removed into foster care?
    d. Can those risks be managed?
    e. Should the children have contact with SE and are orders necessary in that regard?

    Welfare checklist

    The ascertainable wishes and feelings of the child concerned (considered in the light of their age and understanding)

  35. The children wish to stay with SC. They have been, perhaps, the most vocal and insistent children in terms of making sure that message got through to the judge that I have come across. Their letters are well-thought out, persuasive and give detail of the care they receive from SC, saying that they feel safe and secure with him, their home with him is where they belong, and that they will not submit to being moved to any other home.
  36. The question of the weight I give to these views is not simple. On the one hand, the children are 13 and 15 and assessed as competent, and the views are clear, consistent, and backed up with examples. All of that suggests that these wishes and feelings should be given so much weight as to be almost determinative.
  37. I have to balance that against the background and the wider evaluation of the children by professionals. There is a sense amongst professionals that the children are not telling them everything. When they were asked about an incident with an intruder they appeared to know nothing about it: but they did know about it because the police had spoken to them about it at least once. There is a concern on the part of the Guardian, shared by the social worker, that they may be unwilling to admit to the incident in case it threatened their security in their placement. Dr Bowen-Wright said both children had a good understanding of their situation but were astute, and therefore likely to be guarded against the threat to their home life. Simply considering the turbulent start they had in life, and the number of changes to their primary carer, there are obvious reasons why these children would be unusually determined to hold on to the security they now feel, whatever its disadvantages. I come to this conclusion: that I give the children's wishes and feelings a great deal of weight, but I do not consider that they tell me much about risk.
  38. Their physical, emotional and educational needs

  39. O has been diagnosed with dyslexia. He has expressed thoughts of suicidality in the past, though these are not current. He was thought by Dr Bowen-Wright to minimise his feelings of anxiety and low mood, and to have a fragile sense of self arising from turbulent care being given to him. Both children were found to have developed maladaptive coping mechanisms to do with the care given to them and the acrimony between their fathers.
  40. Both children were referred to CAMHS who did not recommend therapeutic intervention, recommending post-adoption support. Dr Bowen-Wright recommended that it would be in the children's best interests for there to be a swift conclusion regarding long-term plans for their care, and that they be consulted about the decisions that are to take place. She did not recommend the introduction of more professionals, but rather counselling or regular pastoral meetings in school. The adults working with the two children could consult with CAMHS.
  41. Academically and socially, both children are doing very well. They have 97% school attendance and are achieving what they are expected to achieve. They are well-settled in their school.
  42. They have all the normal needs of teenagers. They need to be able to rely on their main carer to be available for them. They have an enhanced need for stability and security given their background. They are both at secondary school: they need educational stability to enable them to do well in their GCSEs and fulfil their considerable potential. They need to have resolution in their relationship with Mr E and to have a warm trusting relationship with him if that is possible
  43. The likely effect on her of any change of circumstances

  44. The children themselves have told me by letter that if they are moved to foster care they will not prepare for the move, or pack anything, and when they arrive in foster care they will make their way back to SC. On behalf of SC it is said that the impact of removal would be devastating to O and Y. It would be the fifth placement for them (birth parents, foster care, joint care of SC and SE, primary care SC). I think this in fact understates it. O, for example had 5 foster placements by the time the first set of care proceedings concluded and he was placed for adoption. There was also a period when SE was the primary carer. In any event they have had a very fragmented care history. SC says that a removal from SC now, at this crucial time in their development, would cause far-reaching negative impacts on their emotional and mental health. In oral evidence the Social Worker said clearly that there will be significant emotional harm if the children are moved out of SC's care.
  45. The Guardian in oral evidence said many things about the harm to the children of being removed into foster care.
  46. a. She said that at the moment the children had just completed therapy, were in a good place and were like normal children. Moving them to foster care would, in the Guardian's view, eliminate all this positive work
    b. She was very concerned about the trauma of the removal itself. It might require police intervention which would be harmful.
    c. She was concerned that the children would return home. They were innocent, and not "streetwise" and she was concerned about the risk to them of trying to come home by themselves.
    d. She was concerned that they would not have a home to come home to. SC maintains the home by virtue of two mortgages which he is able to pay only because of the benefits he gets because the children live with him. It is said (and not challenged) that if the children were removed, the benefits would cease and the home would be lost. The Guardian was worried about the destabilising effect on the children if they lost their main care-giver, and also then lost their home at the same time.
    e. She considered that removal to foster care would even worsen the relationship between the children and SE, because they knew that he supports the plan for removal and they might therefore blame him. In the Guardian's view if any such further deterioration in the relationship took place, there might not be a way back.
    f. There would be an impact on the children's friendships as they would no longer be as near the school
    g. Education would be disrupted, at a time when O is studying for his GCSEs.

  47. The other impact on the children would be to remove them from a situation in which their primary care-giver is addicted to drugs and possibly alcohol, and is from time to time unable to meet their needs, and appears to have been unable over the last eight years to lock the flat door consistently to keep out intruders. There would be a significant improvement in terms of risk of physical safety and harm from neglect.
  48. Their age, sex, background, and any characteristics which the court considers relevant

  49. Both children have a white British mother and a birth father from the Americas. They are full siblings. The adoptive fathers match the heritage of the biological parents. The children call SE "daddy" and SC "dad". The Guardian says "O and Y are beautiful young people, inside and out. They are lovely, polite, thoughtful, bright and engaging". She describes Y as more outgoing and says the children have never revealed anything of any concern about SC. The children are very close to each other, which is a real benefit to them.
  50. Any harm which she has suffered or is at risk of suffering

  51. The harms which have already arisen are set out in the Threshold document. I will not repeat them here. There are, however, some risks of harm which are not contained in that document and some of which have come to light very recently.
  52. The first is SC's ongoing drug use. There are numerous drug tests in the bundle. They all show, to a greater or lesser extent, continuing drug use by SC of Amphetamine, Cannabis, cocaine, ketamine, MDMA and methamphetamine. SC takes issue with some (not all) of the test results but accepts that he is still addicted to illicit drugs. SC's excessive alcohol markers have come down in recent months and I give him credit for that. Nevertheless in oral evidence he confirmed that the last time he had a drink was the day before, and the last time he took illicit drugs was the previous weekend when the children were away. There is a difference between professionals' and SC's understanding of the word "abstinent". SC takes it to mean that he is not under the influence at that precise moment and so in his own eyes, he was "abstinent" whilst giving evidence". Professionals do not understand the word in that way and require a significant period of time to have passed with no usage of substances at all before the word "abstinent" can be used. I adopt the usage used by the professionals, which is the normal usage for this court. It is clear that SC is not abstinent in that sense, either from illicit drugs or alcohol. There remains a risk, indeed almost a certainty, that he will continue to use drugs. When he has done so before, the children have been harmed, as set out in the threshold document. It is likely, therefore that the children will be harmed again in the same ways if they stay in his care.
  53. SC says he will manage this by not using drugs when they are there. I accept that when he says that he means it: but he is an addict, and he has not been able to control his impulses in the past. There is a significant risk he will use drugs when the children are in his care.
  54. The risk of harm to the children is or can be reduced in the following ways:
  55. a. SC having more awareness now of the harm his drug use has caused – the Guardian considered he was beginning to understand during the course of his oral evidence
    b. A written agreement not to use substances when he is caring for the children
    c. Increased monitoring
    d. Regular and random drug testing, which SC does consent to
    e. Consistent engagement with drug rehabilitation services
    f. The very fact that the children are older and increasingly resilient.

  56. The risk of continued drug use is high in my view, based on the history. It is the impact on the children which can be reduced using these measures. Reduced, but not extinguished. Even with those measures in place there remains a risk of harm to them.
  57. The second risk relates to intruders and the security of the premises. It is important to understand the sequence in which SC gave his narrative about this issue. The social work final statement (31 March 2025) reported that on 3 March 2025 SC telephoned them to say there had been an intruder in the home in the early hours of that day. He said he had woken to find a man in his bedroom and noticed that it was a man who usually walks around the block and in the community, and who is known to have mental health difficulties. The man was pulling his trousers down, and so he asked him to leave and he called the police. By the time the police came the man had left. The children heard and saw nothing.
  58. Unfortunately the Local Authority received on the same day a different account of the incident from the manager of a drug rehabilitation programme which SC was meant to be attending. He had emailed SC regarding his low attendance and because he had missed an appointment for drugs testing. As a reason for not attending, SC put forward the narrative that he had not slept the night before because he had woken in the night to find a man standing at the foot of his bed undressing. He recognised him as a local homeless man who, last year, barricaded himself into SC's flat for five hours with SC being stuck in the corridor outside, and that the man ended up throwing a knife at SC. There is no suggestion that the children were inside the flat at this time.
  59. On the most recent occasion (3 March 2025) SC had called the police. The police report said that SC told them it was the 8th or 9th time the man had entered his property. All of this information was contained in the Local Authority's final statement.
  60. 43. In response, SC filed a statement dated 28 March 2025 "clarifying" the incident. He said "the individual who entered my flat is a vulnerable adult with schizophrenia who becomes unwell when unmedicated. He is known to the residents in the building and has previously entered other flats, including flats 2 and 4. The building's main door has been faulty for some time, which I have reported to […] the property managers. He entered without permission and left amicably but it took some time to gather his bags and belongings from the corridor before leaving. I reported the incident to police via 101, choosing not to call 999 to avoid the police attending in a panic and waking the children before school. I also informed [the Local Authority] later that morning, well in advance of the next scheduled Child Protection Review in July. This is evidence of my commitment to ensuring my children's safety".

  61. SC goes on to say that to have the incident framed as evidence of ongoing sexual risk (a suggestion made by SE and the LA) is completely unfair. He says the suggestion that he allows unsafe adults into his home is equally unfounded.
  62. The IRH took place a few days after this statement was filed. The Guardian's view was that SC's account of the incident was "not credible". Without finding any facts, I told SC at IRH that on the face of the evidence as it was before the court at that stage, the court did not find it credible either, as it did not explain why an intruder had got in 8-9 times. I told SC that I was telling him that to give him a chance to tell the court the truth. I told him that the court could work with the truth: what the court could not work with was a lack of truth. I directed him to file a detailed statement on the incident, why it had happened and whether it had happened before.
  63. In compliance, SC filed a further statement on 11 April 25, but as the Guardian has said in her submissions, it was not the open, honest account needed. In his statement SC described the intruder as a man named X "whom he has known casually for years". He said again that X had significant mental health problems. He confirmed that X had entered his flat approximately 8 times over an 8-10 year period. He gave further detail about the 2023 incident which was the incident with the knife. On that occasion X was found disorientated, wandering around topless and acting as if he had every right to stay. SC was keen to imply that this was a problem that others in the block also had because of a faulty lock on the main door to the building and another one on the door to the garden, and exhibited correspondence from the neighbours to this effect. On the occasion in 2023, SC said he knew X could be come unstable if confronted aggressively, and so he tried to handle the matter alone. He encouraged him to leave, offered him water and attempted to show empathy. X became more delusional, rummaging around the flat, and then barricaded himself inside, leaving SC locked out in the corridor. Ultimately he threw a knife down the hallway (not directly at SC, but SC says it was still terrifying). He still did not call the police. It seems to me that it was only by the grace of God that the children were not in the flat during this episode.
  64. On 17 April 2025, SE filed a statement saying that the intruder was either a chem sex partner or a drug user purchasing drugs, and that SC was having chem sex in the flat with men who were given instructions by him on how to get into the flat.
  65. On the morning of the first day of the final hearing, SC sought and was granted permission to file a 25 page statement responding to SE's allegations, and denying them. He did accept that there had been a handful of isolated incidents where he engaged in sexual activity and used substances while the children were in the home. On those rare occasions, he said, the children were never aware of what was taking place or exposed to anything inappropriate. "Their safety and protection have remained my top priority, even when making the immense errors of judgment listed here" he said.
  66. It was not until SC was cross examined in oral evidence that he finally told the truth about X. The truth was that he had met X on Grindr, a social networking app for the LGBTQ community. He accepted that he had met X for a "casual meet" later clarified as a sexual interaction, and he later clarified that he had invited X round about three times at that stage. That was about 8 years ago and they did not meet again after that.. He said that he next found X in his flat about a year later. It was put to him that portraying him as a stranger as opposed to someone from Grindr was different. SC tried to justify that by saying he didn't know his background, job, family. He was a stranger. I was not persuaded by SC's argument. He was asked why he had taken so long to tell the truth and said that he wanted to hide it. He accepted in oral evidence that he had invited certain people to the flat for sex when the children were there. They were people from a WhatsApp group: more than strangers but less than friends. They were people with whom he had had sexual interactions before so he knew a little about them. He accepted he used drugs and had sex with them when the children were there on a handful of occasions. He accepted that that put the children at some level of risk and said he would not do it again.
  67. It is my view that it has taken a long time but we have at last got to the heart of this issue. I am very glad that SC heeded my words at IRH and decided in the end to tell the truth, because that now enables me to conduct a proper analysis of the risk arising from facts which are, at last, credible. I find Jackson LJ's checklist from T (Children: Risk Assessment) ibid helpful and will go through his questions.
  68. First, what type of harm has arisen or might arise? No harm has come to the children other than perhaps worry at what they have been told of the incident in 2025 by the police and by SC. But there has been risk of harm. SC says the 2025 incident was the first time the children were in the home. That means on the other 7 occasions when X came in uninvited it was pure luck that they were not there. X is, by SC's own case, unpredictable and schizophrenic. On one occasion he threw a knife. The children could easily have been barricaded inside the home with him with SC locked outside and at that stage, almost anything could have happened. There has, in my view, been a risk of significant harm from X.
  69. However, the risk from X arises in my view not from meeting men on Grindr, but from failing to lock the door. There is no dispute that X's access was possible because the door was repeatedly left unlocked. It is a basic act of protection in a primary carer to lock the door at night to make sure the children are safe from intruders of all kinds. SC has put forward a great deal of evidence about the perimeter doors to his building being faulty. That is deflection on the part of SC. I am not interested in that. I have wanted to know throughout how it was that SC was not securing his flat door properly at night. There is no satisfactory answer to that. It seems to me that anyone can make a mistake once: but to make the same mistake 8 times is puzzling, particularly when the stakes are so high. SC said at one stage that the children might have left the door unlocked after walking the dog, and at another stage said the lock to the flat was faulty. He was asked why he had not simply put a chain on it at night, so simple and so effective. SC just didn't know. He intends to put one on now. He also told me that he now has a routine with the children where they go round and lock up every night. He says that routine is embedded for him now, and he is working on it being embedded in the children.
  70. I have to ask how likely X is to get into the house a 9th time, and a 10th, and an 11th. That is the second of LJ Jackson's questions. The answer is that it is less likely if the risk can be managed effectively. The third question is just that: can the risk be reduced or manage? It seems to me that the Local Authority could oversee the fitting of a chain on the door to make sure that it happens immediately. It is SC's responsibility to put the chain on at night and he appears to understand that it needs to be part of his routine. Direct work could also be done with the children to ensure that they understand the chain must be on at night. A ring doorbell with a video camera could also help. In addition I am told (and it is not in dispute) that the faulty outer door of the building has now been permanently fixed. That makes a big difference, as if X can not access the building, he will not appear at the flat door. These measure do go a considerable distance to minimise this risk. This is a risk with an easy solution. There is no reason why it can not be implemented.
  71. The other risk comes from inviting people to take drugs and have sex in the flat when the children are there. I agree with the Guardian that there seemed to be some dawning awareness in SC during his oral evidence that this was a risk. He had clearly thought that these were people he knew well enough to know they would not cause trouble, that the children would not be disturbed and so felt there was no risk. But it was put to him that he could not rule out himself having a bad reaction to the drugs and the children being left alone with a stranger. Even if the stranger did nothing aggressive or unkind, it would still be terrifying for a child to wake up and find a stranger on drugs in their home. Likewise, the person invited in could have a bad reaction to the drugs and become ill or violent. Street drugs are not always pure or predictable. As these points were put to SC in oral evidence he became somewhat thoughtful and was able to say that he did now see there was a risk and would not do it again when the children were there.
  72. It is hard for me to say how much I trust that intention. Again I am sure he means it. But again it is a question of being able to resist it in the moment. That is not always easy. There will be opportunities for sex when the children are away, or SC could go to other people's houses, and all of that makes it less likely that the risk will arise. In terms of risk reduction, measures could be put in place such as a Ring doorbell to monitor who is going in and out, and a written agreement by SC not to invite people in for sex and drugs when the children are there, that agreement being monitored by the Ring doorbell. I conclude that there is still a risk of harm if SC is unable to keep to the agreement, but that risk is lowered by the availability of sex elsewhere and at other times, and by the monitoring arrangements.
  73. Those are the risks of harm if the children stay with SC. There is also to be considered the risk if they are moved to foster care. I have set out at some length in paragraphs 30 and 31 above the harms put forward by the parties if the children are removed to foster care. Having heard the Guardian's evidence, and having read the children' letters I am in no doubt that it will indeed be devastating for them if they are removed. I must ask whether that would be a short-term harm for the purpose of securing the children's greater safety, or whether it would be an enduring significant harm.
  74. The children are very resilient. That will help them if they are moved against their wishes and cushion them to some extent from harm.
  75. There is an argument that moving the children to foster care would give SC the time and space to address his issues. If the children could see that, and understand it, that again would reduce the negative impact on them of the move. I am not persuaded by that argument. SC has been unable to address his drug use even with the court proceedings and threat of losing the children hanging over him. In my view it is much more likely that, if the children are removed, he will descend into what he has described as a "hot mess". He is not, in my view, an emotionally resilient man, with much work to do on his own C-PTSD, body-image issues and other issues. In my view it is fanciful to think that removing the children will give him time and space that he is able to use – particularly if he loses his home at the same time.
  76. The Local Authority contends that by removing the children into foster care, they will have time and neutral space in which to focus on their own needs rather than SC's, and to explore their feelings about both fathers rather than being influenced by either father. Again, in my view that is not likely to happen. If the children are removed, they will be all the more focused on getting back to SC. They will worry about him. All their thoughts and energies will be directed to getting out of foster care and going to the one place they think of as home. These are not conditions for successful self-reflection.
  77. Some of the harms which will be caused by removal do appear to me to have the potential to be life-long. It makes a difference that these children have experienced so much instability and such fragmented care. They have formed attachments and bonds with carers only to have them broken time and again. To have the carpet pulled out from under them yet again could cause long-lasting trust issues, not just with authority figures but in terms of trusting relationships with family members. I remind myself of the report of Dr Bowen-Wright, setting out the vulnerabilities of these children in terms of their having fragile self-esteem and maladaptive coping strategies. That has to be held in mind alongside the other evidence of their being unusually resilient. Both may well be true. I take into account also their ages and the vehemence of their wishes, no doubt influenced by their fragmented care so far. All of this combines to suggest that the impact of removal is unlikely to be something they simply "get over" and move on. They have been through too much for that to be likely.
  78. I have considered whether these risks can be reduced and managed. The recommendation is for work to be done with them via the school. It seems to me that might be helpful in relation to their current concerns and difficulties of life with SC, but wholly inadequate in relation to the loss of their home, their primary carer, their security and what they perceive as their place of safety. There is a limit to what school counsellors can do. The Local Authority could attempt direct work, but it seems to me unlikely that the children would wish to engage with the Local Authority. No other suggestions have been put forward for managing this risk of harm.
  79. The other risk of harm which must be considered is harm to the relationship with SE. SE would say that there is a risk of further harm to his relationship with both children if they remain with SC because he is alienating them and is not supportive of contact. I have looked in detail at the schedule of contact helpfully produced by his legal team. Some contacts with Y have indeed been missed because SC did not bring her. But he did bring her to the vast majority and there is no evidence that she lacks emotional permission to enjoy her time with her daddy (as she calls SE). Her recent refusal of contact I see in the light of the heightened emotions of the week before trial. In my view, there is much more risk of harm to SE's relationship with the children if the children are removed, for the reason given by the Guardian: that they will blame him for supporting the removal and not be able to forgive him.
  80. How capable each of their parents are of meeting their needs

  81. The curious feature of this case is how well SC has met the needs of the children given his extensive drug and alcohol use. I have set out above the unanimous view of professionals including the school that the children are thriving in his care. They are well-presented, the Guardian describes them as a credit to their fathers, they are achieving well, they are socially integrated, they are healthy and well. They have given me examples of how SC is able to meet more than just their physical needs. I have been told about "red" and "blue" time where SC spends time with each child individually to talk about anything that is concerning them. Y told me how SC had helped her when her periods started: she said he didn't know much about it so they sat down and googled it together, and he bought her all that she needed including a hot water bottle. That was obviously sensitively and appropriately handled and is an example of the good parenting which SC undoubtedly provides when he is not under the influence of substances. The difficulty of course is when he is under the influence.
  82. Realistic options

  83. There are two realistic options: removal to foster care, and remaining at home with SC, either under a supervision order or a care order. I have set out the advantages and disadvantages of each in terms of risk in my welfare checklist analysis above and will not repeat it here. What I must do is balance those risks.
  84. The risk of staying at home is that they will, quite likely, be exposed to further drug use by the father, with the impact set out in the threshold document. That risk is mitigated by the father's increasing understanding of the risk (as I find), his determination not to use drugs when the children are present, a written agreement, random and scheduled drug testing, close monitoring by the Local Authority, direct work with the children, the fact that the children are older and are competent and resilient and by the fact that, despite the drug use and harm it has caused, the children have thrived.
  85. A further risk is a risk from strangers accessing the flat. That risk is mitigated by the outer perimeter door now being secure, and it could be further mitigated by the simple addition of a chain on the inside of the door. Again SC appears to have some dawning realisation of the importance of locking up at night. Again direct work can be done with the children about the importance of security, although in the context of it being SC's responsibility to ensure it and not theirs.
  86. A further risk is in relation to SC having sexual partners come to the house to take drugs and have sex. That risk can be mitigated by a written agreement, the fact that sex can take place at times and places where the children are not around, and there is also the option of Ring Doorbell. The Local Authority is adamant that that is not a realistic mitigation, and say it is intrusive, and is not the role of the state to monitor people going in and out of people's houses. They say it would take disproportionate time to monitor it, and would also be intrusive for the children.
  87. I have thought about this carefully. SC does submit to the use of Ring Doorbell and for the feed to be streamed straight to the Local Authority. It would obviously be too onerous to monitor this constantly. However, either it, or alternatively a CCTV device, can provide a record of visits and SC will know that anyone going in and out will be recorded. That is a powerful incentive to him to keep to the written agreement. If ever an incident occurred he would know that the Local Authority could look back and see who had gone in or out of the flat. The Local Authority say it is not their role to monitor who goes in and out: but Local Authorities routinely control who is allowed in a house where children are living. It is common for people to have to be vetted before they are allowed to visit. And Local Authorities do unannounced visits precisely to check whether their rules are being adhered to. This is in principle no different. SC has accepted the intrusion. The Guardian said in oral evidence she was confident that if the children understand it is a condition of staying at home, they would accept it rather than move to foster care. It is an unusual suggestion: but this is an unusual case. I will come shortly to the question of whether it is in fact an exceptional case. But in this unusual case it seems to me this is an innovative and useful addition to the security measures which can be put in place to reduce the risk to the children and increase the likelihood of them being able to stay at home.
  88. The advantages of staying at home are that it is what the children want to do, they are stable, settled and thriving there and their presentation is such as to indicate that they are receiving good attuned care both physically and emotionally from SC the majority of the time.
  89. The advantages of moving the children to foster care are that they will be physically safe. They will be safe from neglect and emotional unavailability caused by drug use. They will be safe from intruders, and safe from comparative strangers coming to the house to take drugs and have sex. The Local Authority has found a good foster placement for them, which is relatively near, would keep them together and would enable them to continue to attend their current school. They would be able to have contact with both fathers and wider family.
  90. The disadvantages of moving the children to foster care are that the move will cause them emotional harm and in my view that harm is likely to be significant and lifelong. I have not seen any measures which have persuaded me that that harm can be meaningfully reduced.
  91. Decision

  92. In her oral evidence the Guardian said she found this a very finely balanced decision. I have found it less finely balanced. Prior to final hearing I was very worried indeed about who the repeat intruder was, and why SC seemed so blasé about him. Now that I understand the truth, it is my view that measures can be put in place to reduce the risks to acceptable levels. I remind myself of Jackson LJ in T (Children: Risk Assessment) (ibid) that risk assessment is about the realistic assessment of risk, not about the elimination of all risks. In my view the harm which would be caused to these children by removing them from SC's care is so certain, so significant and likely to be so enduring given their history of care and the stage they are at that it is not to be countenanced. That is not just to say that I accede to their wishes and feelings. They are an important element, but it is the overall welfare analysis that leads me to that conclusion. It is the history of fragmented care, it is the fact of their impressive presentation as individuals, it is their academic progress, it is the stage of their development and education – all these elements combine with their wishes and feelings to make it clear to me that the outcome which best meets their needs is to stay in the care of SC. As I have said above, I also consider that gives them the best chance of repairing their fractured relationships with SE and there is more hope of that happening when the pressures and anxieties of these proceedings are over.
  93. My decision is conditional on one thing. There must be a chain fitted to the inside of the flat door within 7 days. This judgment is being formally handed down in draft, with some weeks to elapse before the formal handing down of the perfected judgment. As a result the Guardian will stay involved. The parties are to write to me after 7 days to tell me that a chain has been fitted and that will enable me to perfect the judgment in the terms set out above.
  94. Form of order

  95. I must consider whether the placement should be underpinned by a care order or a supervision order for 12 months. In my view this is an exceptional case. It is highly exceptional to place children in a home where the only carer is addicted to a cocktail of illegal drugs and in the middle of addressing his addiction to alcohol. That is not just unusual. I can think of no more fitting description than "highly exceptional". Many parents have had their children removed for far less. The risks in this placement are higher than would usually be acceptable to a court. For those reasons I consider it is open to me to make a Care Order at home if I consider it is in the children's welfare interests for me to do so.
  96. The Local Authority resists it, pointing out that a care order makes no realistic difference to the Local Authority's ability to remove the children if things go wrong. I accept that. If it is an emergency, the Local Authority will take emergency action no matter what order is in place. If it is not an emergency, they will come to the court whether it is a care order or a supervision order.
  97. The Local Authority also say that all of the safety measures proposed by the Guardian can be implemented under a supervision order, which is the least interventionist approach. I agree that the measures set out in the Guardian's written submissions could be implemented under a supervision order. There are other considerations though as to why a care order might be warranted in this case.
  98. Firstly, a supervision order lasts for a maximum of 12 months in the first instance, and a maximum of three years over all. It would only be renewed after the first 12 months if the Local Authority sought to renew it. A care order will last until the children are 18 and will only be discharged if a party applies for the discharge. Whilst support can be given under a supervision order there is no guarantee that it would be given after the first 12 months, and the decision whether to seek continuation would be taken without consultation with the children's guardian, whose appointment would have ended. In a case with the level of risk this case has, that seems to me an important distinction.
  99. Secondly, under a care order, the Local Authority has a duty to promote contact. The contact arrangements in this case are particularly difficult, and have a major impact on the emotional wellbeing of both children. So far little if anything has been done (despite recommendations) to heal the relationship between the children and SE. That work is essential. The children are also likely (particularly O) to be resistant to it. A duty to promote contact is necessary to ensure this is approached with the right degree of determination.
  100. Thirdly, a care order gives the Local Authority parental responsibility and enables them to determine how other holders exercise their parental responsibility. In this case where there has been such toxic conflict for 10 years between the fathers, and where this has affected the children so deeply as set out by Dr Bowen-Wright, it is essential for the Local Authority to have the power to decide practical matters which may be in dispute. The children desperately need a reduction in this conflict and a sharing of parental responsibility in this way can only assist.
  101. Fourthly, I note the submissions of the Local Authority as to SC's capacity to be obstructive. They cite a history of making complaints against officials, concern in previous proceedings that there has been alienation from both fathers, and the possibility that he has influenced the children in the run-up to final hearing to say that they no longer trust the Guardian and wish her to be replaced and in the case of Y that she no longer wishes to see SE. I make no findings about those latter two points, but I have myself seen at first hand SC's capacity to be obstructive. I saw it in his repeated refusal until the very last minute to tell the truth about X. I have seen it in his telephone call to the police in March 2025 when he starts out telling them about the intruder but becomes increasingly obstructive and hostile in telling them not to come to the flat. There are other examples. In those circumstances, it is even more necessary for the Local Authority to share parental responsibility to ensure that they can obtain co-operation from SC in cases where he might be obstructive.
  102. Fifthly, although it is not right to make a supervision order just to obtain support and services, I do consider that a higher level of monitoring will be needed in this case than in a normal supervision order case because of the very high level of risk. This monitoring is necessary to protect the children, to ensure for example that they are being given an evening meal (which has not always happened in the past) and to ensure that SC is in a fit state to care for them.
  103. For all those reasons it seems to me that a care order is both necessary in order to protect the children and proportionate to the very high risks in this case, and I therefore make care orders for both children and direct the Local Authority to carry out a placement with parents assessment, recording if necessary that the placement is not in line with the Local Authority's final care plan but is imposed by the court.
  104. Contact

  105. I turn then to SE's contact. He asks me for a contact order in relation to Y and for work to be done with him and O towards the reinstatement of their relationship and the restarting of contact. I agree with him that both children need to have a relationship with him. I know that he was the children's primary carer, and then shared carer for a large part of their lives. The Guardian has recorded that both fathers have a deep love for the children, and that both children love their fathers however differently O may feel about that at present. The rebuilding of their relationship with SE is of vital importance for their emotional health.
  106. That said, I do not agree that making orders about it is the right way forward at this stage. Part of my reasoning for making a care order is the need for significant intervention in the area of contact. I have no difficulty saying that the care plan for Y should include a commitment from the Local Authority to encourage Y to attend supervised contact with SE fortnightly, and also that it should include a commitment to provide both children with the interventions they need to address the issues in their relationship with SE with a view to improving or restarting contact. That it seems to me is the right way to deal with this rather than making inflexible orders about contact, and is in my view more likely to be effective.
  107. SIO: Information

  108. I am also asked to make an order for SE to be kept informed about the children's progress and development. Again, I would ask the LA to incorporate that as part of their care plan, that once a month they will send SE an update. I would encourage SC to do the same thing as that would be child-focussed and may help the children to perceive a reduction in conflict: but in view of that conflict between the fathers it does not seem to me that ordering SC to communicate with SE on a monthly basis is likely to be productive. If SC can manage to do it without the court ordering him to do it, his children will benefit.
  109. Message for the children

  110. I conclude with a message for the children. I would like to say to you both that I loved meeting you, and that it really helped me in making my decision to be able to picture you. I am grateful that you took the time to come and see me, and to write to me. I know you have been worried that your views were not getting through and the professionals were not listening to you. I hope you can see now that they were listening to you, and had your best interests at heart.
  111. I have to say that the strength of your family bond was very clear to me, and in particular the love and support that you provide to each other. Because of that amazing family bond I thought it would be too harmful to you to move you from your dad's care where you are doing so well. And so my decision is for you to remain where you are.
  112. I have, though, said that the Local Authority should stay involved and that there should be a care order in place. That is because your dad still has a lot of work to do and will need help over a long period. You know that he is still using drugs and he will need professional help with that. The care order should help with that.
  113. It's important to me to know that you know what is going on and so I want you know that there is going to be a safety plan. The social worker will talk to you about that, making sure you know what to do if anything goes wrong. There will be a new lock on the door, and there is going to be a camera on your front and back door. You can be involved in finalising the safety plan, and you will be asked to sign up to it so that everybody knows you are on board.
  114. The other thing that was very clear to me was how much both your fathers love you. I know things are not good between SE and O at the moment, and maybe they are even a bit strained with Y. But he has written you letters telling you about his love and wish to be there for you and he told me about that too. He has taken a step back to give you space to be where you want to be. He did that out of love. It was hard for him. I hope that in due course you will feel able to see him, and that with help and support those relationships might begin to be repaired. That is very important for your emotional and mental health as you get older, and that is why I hope you will think about it carefully.

  115. Meanwhile I wish you all the best. You are bright and amazing children and I know you will do well.
  116. 3 June 2025 Final Version.

About BAILII - FAQ - Copyright Policy - Disclaimers - Privacy Policy amended on 25/11/2010