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) >> London Borough of Ealing v Father & Ors [2025] EWFC 135 (B) (14 May 2025)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2025/135.html
Cite as: [2025] EWFC 135 (B)

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]

Neutral Citation Number: [2025] EWFC 135 (B)
Case No: ZW24C50276

IN THE FAMILY COURT AT WEST LONDON

West London Family Court
Gloucester House, 4 Duke Green Avenue,
Feltham, TW14 0LR
14 May 2025

B e f o r e :

HIS HONOUR JUDGE WILLANS
____________________

Between:
LONDON BOROUGH OF EALING
Applicant
- and –

(1) The Father
(2) The MGM
(3) A (through his Children's Guardian)
Respondents

____________________

Reiss Morrison (instructed by Ealing Legal Services) for the Applicant
The First Respondent was a litigant in person
Fiona Munro (instructed by Vickers & Co Solicitors) for the Second Respondent
Pamela Warner (instructed by Creighton & Partners Solicitors) for the Third Respondent

Hearing dates: 30 April & 1-2 May 2025

____________________

HTML VERSION OF JUDGMENT
____________________

Crown Copyright ©

    HHJ WILLANS:

    Introduction

  1. I am concerned with the placement plans for this nearly 7-year-old child [ ] ("A"). The applicant local authority ("the LA"), his maternal grandmother, [ ] ("the MGM") and his guardian, Ms Durkin ("the CG") agree and urge me to make both a special guardianship order ("SGO") in favour of the MGM and then a care order in favour of the LA. I am additionally asked to continue and extend an existing non-molestation order in favour of the MGM and against the respondent father, [ ] ("the father") and to make an order under section 34(4) Children Act 1989 permitting the LA to refuse contact between A and his father.
  2. Sadly, A's mother died during the Corona Virus Pandemic. A's father opposes the plans set out above and argues for some form of shared care arrangement between himself and the MGM. In doing so he opposes any care order which would additionally prevent the making of a section 34(4) Order.
  3. I heard evidence and submissions over three days and I have kept all of this in mind together with the documents found within the hearing bundle, the submissions at the conclusion of the hearing and some limited additional documents filed during the course of the hearing.
  4. Conclusions

  5. I have decided the right outcome for A is for him to live with his MGM. I have determined the right order is very unusually the combination of a SGO and care order. I have decided it is appropriate to extend the non-molestation order and to permit the LA to refuse contact. I approve the care plan. In this judgment I set out the points which have led me to this conclusion.
  6. Background

  7. I have regard to the chronology attached to the initial social worker statement and to the background summary contained within that document. In doing so, I appreciate not all of this background detail is agreed. Nonetheless, it provides a helpful overview of the circumstances and concerns, if not facts, leading up to the proceedings.
  8. The family came to the attention of the LA in 2018 with the mother pregnant and concerns as to the father's mental health and offending profile. A Child protection Plan came into effect shortly after his birth. The family experienced police involvement around suggested domestic violence in 2019 associated with alcohol abuse which led to the father's arrest. Other complaints of domestic abuse arose in 2020. As at 2021 the MGM reports the mother was planning to leave the father due to these circumstances.
  9. Sadly in 2021 A's mother died whilst carrying A's unborn sibling. A was present in the home at this time when his mother was found. In the same year both paternal grandparents died. Following his mother's death the father and MGM agreed for A to be placed into the MGM's care. This situation has continued ever since.
  10. In early 2023 the MGM sought support from the LA as she was concerned as to the father's behaviour to both herself and A. In that year there was an incident when the father threw a chair in the presence of both A and the MGM. Prior to this the LA had offered advice around the MGM seeking to formalise the arrangements and put together a safety plan to ensure contact between the father and A was safe. At this time, the MGM was reluctant to pursue a SGO as she was concerned as to the father's reaction. Offers of mediation were accepted by the father but not the MGM. In April 2023, the MGM sought legal advice as to a SGO.
  11. In May 2023, the father engaged with community alcohol support. The support was then closed on the basis he had attained abstinence. His case is that he has remained abstinent since that time. The father was resistant to assessment around risk and declined consent for his medical records to be shared. He subsequently declined a parenting assessment. In late 2023 the MGM commenced a process of SGO assessment but then withdrew as she did not want to upset the father. In November 2023, the father was reported to have communicated aggressively with the social worker after she undertook a welfare visit to the child. He told her she was not to have contact with A. On November 2023, the MGM expressed concern as to the father's conduct towards her in the presence of A but continued to decline a route towards SGO. In the same month, the father declined to work with a Child in Need Plan and informed the LA he did not want social workers visiting A. The MGM expressed the same view out of fear of the father's reaction if she did not.
  12. In April 2023 A had informed his school that his father had scratched him. In April 2024 A told his school, MGM, and the social worker that his father had strangled him. The police were involved but there was insufficient evidence to support any action. The MGM informed the LA she was unable to supervise contact as she was afraid of the father. The father made clear he did not agree with the safety plan. Contrary to the plan the father collected A from school and had him overnight. The LA undertook a telephone welfare check and no concerns arose. The LA offered the father a parenting assessment which he declined. In May 2024, the MGM accepted a domestic abuse support referral. On a later occasion the father refused a social worker welfare check at his home. In late May 2024, the father refused access to social workers to his home to undertake parenting assessment work. In June 2024, the father refused a parenting assessment and later declined mental health support.
  13. In July 2024, the MGM was advised to apply for a SGO. The LA were concerned as to the safety of the arrangements and the ability to safely manage the same. They issued an application for a care order with a plan of assessment of the MGM and a plan of placement with her under Regulation 24 provisions.
  14. The proceedings were allocated to Circuit Judge due to the allegation of strangulation. I heard an interim care hearing on 30 July 2024. I made this order and approved continuing placement with the MGM together with contact for the father. I made an exclusion order with respect to the MGM's home. Case management directions were made on 23 August 2024 by HHJ Corbett (the allocated Judge). On 19 August 2024, the LA suspended direct contact with the father in the light of his behaviour and proposed a risk assessment. Assessments were to be undertaken with respect to the father and grandmother. An IRH was fixed for 10 January 2025.
  15. On 20 December 2024, the LA applied to suspend the father's contact pursuant to section 34(4) Children Act 1989. The application suggested the father did not oppose the application. On 10 January 2025 HHJ Corbett heard the listed IRH. She made a section 34(4) Order but put the IRH back to 30 January 2025 due to some slippage in the timetable. This IRH was also not effective and was put back again to 28 March 2025. At that hearing this final hearing was fixed
  16. Legal Principles

  17. These are dealt with as they arise within this judgment.
  18. Threshold

  19. I am of the clear view threshold is crossed in this case. I have regard to the modified document prepared in advance of submissions. I have regard to the father's response document which I consider accepts the crossing of the legal threshold. I would in any event find the threshold established for the reasons set out below.
  20. I have borne in mind the key legal principles. These are that it is for the LA to prove the allegations it makes against the father and not for the father to disprove anything. The LA will prove a point in dispute if it establishes it on the balance of probabilities. If it does so, then the same will be treated as a fact. If it fails to do so, then the allegation will be wholly disregarded. I will bear in mind all the evidence when considering the allegations but will pay particular regard to the evidence given by the father. I am entitled to have regard to the demeanour of witnesses when considering my conclusions but should be suitably cautious when relying on demeanour. Finally, I am entitled to place weight on lies told when considering the truth of an allegation but I must do so with care and continue to be mindful of the alternative reasons why a witness may lie.
  21. The threshold is a legal test as to whether a child has suffered significant harm as a result of the care given to them by a parent with such care not being that which a Court might expect from a reasonable parent. Alternatively, it can be established on a risk of significant harm in similar circumstances should a order not be made. The threshold operates as a gateway to the making of a public law order but it does not automatically ordain the making of such an order.
  22. I summarise the LA concerns. First, the LA alleges risk of physical harm arguing:
  23. i) The father has a number of concerning convictions, he is a violent and threatening individual and this has put A at risk of significant harm

    ii) On an occasion between 13-14 April 2024 during contact the father strangled A

    iii) On 17 April 2024, the father scratched A

    iv) On 26th December 2022 whilst drunk the father threw a chair in the presence of the MGM and A

    v) The father committed acts of domestic abuse in relation to maternal grandmother and A's mother, for example:

    a) On 18th January 2019 he pushed A's mother and poked her to the head. A was at home during this incident
    b) On 10th February 2020, the father threw a cup of warm coffee in the mother's direction, causing a minor injury to her eye. A was in the room at this time
  24. The LA allege risk of emotional harm arguing:
  25. i) The father has threatened to remove A from the care of his MGM despite A being settled in her care. On 28 and 30 March 2025 he removed A from the care of his MGM without her permission.

    ii) On 23 May 2024, the father collected A from school contrary an existing safety plan. A stayed overnight with the father on the evening of 28 May 2024 against professional advice and in breach of the CP plan

    iii) The father has experienced an extremely challenging childhood and suffered traumatic experiences. He has a diagnosis of Asperger's, ADHD, and dissocial Personality Disorder. He also has a history of alcohol misuse and has informed the social worker that he has schizophrenia. Despite this he is non-compliant with his medication and is unwilling to accept community mental health support.

    iv) A has suffered emotional harm as a result of his mother's death in 2021 and resulting conflict between his father and MGM.

  26. I listened with care to the evidence of the father. I found him an engaging individual. He clearly loves A very much and does want the best for him. I have little he doubt he believes his proposals would achieve this. However, he is plainly significantly impacted by his mental health challenges and demonstrates a real sense of paranoia and distrust of state agencies. This may indeed reflect a history of trauma but it has carried over into these proceedings and has impacted in a manner contrary to A's welfare. I judge the father simply cannot help himself in the manner he engages and interacts with the professionals. He tars them all with the same brush and is neither willing to listen to them in any meaningful regard or co-operate with them for the benefit of A. He elevates his own sense of what is best for A above the views of all others and has on multiple occasions lost sight of what is best for A. I do not need to make findings as to the underlying range of mental health challenges faced by the father. I note he both denies schizophrenia for instance whilst apparently referencing its relevance to him when giving evidence and in final submissions. I consider the detail of his challenges is less relevant than the impact they have on the father and the likelihood the same continuing.
  27. He agrees he has a significant criminal history but wanted to make clear this is in the past with such offences 'spent.' I fundamentally acknowledge this fact but I am of the view and find that he continues to present on occasion in an aggressive and threatening manner. This hearing proceeded on a wholly remote basis due to previous concerns arising during the proceedings and it was evident to me that this was the right decision as I watched the father on occasion struggle to control his feelings and the physical manifestation of the same. He appears to be a large man and the MGM genuinely, in my assessment, expressed a level of fear at going against his wishes. He asked me to listen to audio recordings (he frankly accepted recording nearly all the professionals in the case without their permission). I listened to two of the many recordings on the basis that these were identified by the father as most salient. I did not find this particularly helped the father. He came across in the audio as domineering and controlling in his engagement with the social worker and duty social worker. In his questioning and evidence (he was directed to file questions for the MGM) he continued to restructure the name of the social worker in a manner which whilst somewhat confusing was clearly done to mock her. I had to remind him to stop on a number of occasions and repeatedly interrupt him to maintain a far hearing for all. My strong sense was that he could not contain himself. It is noteworthy this was in the context of a Court hearing in which one might readily assume an individual would be on best behaviour.
  28. I considered the evidence of actual alleged domestic abuse. To his credit the father accepted the chair throwing incident in the presence of the MGM and A. He also accepted throwing the cup, but not in the direction of the mother. He agreed part of the other incident but claimed to have acted in self defence whilst both he and the mother were drunk. Whilst I am not assisted by the fact the mother is not available to give her account, I am assisted by the police records and can draw support from other evidence and from the father's own admissions. I find the father has on a number of occasions, and generally when influenced by alcohol, acted in a controlling and abusive manner. I find he did assault the mother as alleged and threw a cup causing her a limited injury. I also find he acted in a threatening and intimidating manner when he threw the chair. I find each of these took place either with A present or in the property. I am in no doubt the father entirely lost sight of A's welfare or interests in the moment. In my assessment distancing the child within the home is a form of minimisation and loses sight of the potential for a child to witness an event without being physically present. I heard the father has now been abstinent from alcohol for a period of two years and hope this is the case (although I only have his evidence to support this). However, I find his acting out is not only a function of alcohol alone but also a function of his personality, his mental health, and his belief in the rightness of his own decision making over the views of others.
  29. Having reflected on his evidence I find the risks associated with this category of harm have not materially dissipated. The father remains challenging and has unpredictable mood patterns. In the moment he can be intimidating and threatening and A is at risk of harm as a result of the same. The father understands the impact he has on others as discussed with the expert in the case and I find on occasion uses this impact to achieve his aims.
  30. But I am not persuaded as to the specific allegations of strangulation and the scratch. Indeed, unfortunately I fear these have fed very much into a sense of grievance and justification on the part of the father for his position taking. He was throughout the hearing drawn to these points and the impact the same has had. Whilst I can understand his sensitivity to these allegations he has at the same time lost sight of the bigger picture.
  31. It will I believe be little surprise to the professionals that I have reached this conclusion. I spent time both examining and testing both allegations in the light of the father's litigant in person status and the potential impact such a finding might have. I do not consider they stand up to examination. Whist I am in no doubt A was the source of the allegation that he was strangled I am not at all satisfied this word used alone is sufficiently probative to find an allegation of actual strangulation on the part of the father. I am in little doubt A has described an event which broadly fits with his father's narrative of an occasion when he held A's neck (either to assist with drinking or following his neck being scratched by thistle or possibly a combination of the same), but I do not find the incident involved anger on his father's part or an intent to pressure A's neck in any way and particularly not to 'strangle him'. I consider A has used and repeated this word and it has sadly stood without real forensic challenge from any professional on the basis that it means what it says. I consider this is a risky assumption when the word is used by a child of A's age with no particular history of using the word (see the evidence of the MGM) and no real context given.
  32. I have borne in mind the father's evidence. I also listened with care to the evidence of the MGM to whom the report was first made. She did not believe the account of strangling and still does not. I do not consider this derives from fear of the father but reflects her initial assessment and the absence of marking that might support a real act of strangulation. I note whilst some very light marks were seen on one side of the child's neck there were no pressure points observed elsewhere and not on the other side of the neck where one might expect following any act of strangulation. I also bear in mind the fact that whilst A has used this word alone, he used no other descriptive words or actions which lend support to the allegation. I do not lose sight of the incidents when the father has been violent in the presence of A but I also do not lose sight of the fact there are no suggestions of actual physical misconduct otherwise directed towards A. I also bear in mind, although taken alone it would bear limited weight, the evidence of A showing a sustained and continuing wish to have contact with his father without any reference to fear as to how his father might behave. It may be that the father has been a little heavy handed in his holding of A but not such as to justify a finding as sought.
  33. As to the scratch the evidence was very limited. The father's response was that this scratch was scratching caused by his long and somewhat wiry beard at the time. The MGM separately supported such a contention. There is no direct evidence of the scratch and very little in any event to suggest this was an event which crossed the significant harm threshold. I am simply not satisfied the LA has evidenced this concern as is required.
  34. I turn next to the alleged risk of emotional harm. I accept the father poses a risk of emotional harm through his dysregulated presentation and his focus on his own needs to the point where A might likely suffer unintended but nonetheless real emotional harm. I was struck again listening to the audio forwarded by the father to hear him talking to a duty social worker and asking whether she wanted A to be brought to the phone. I could then hear him speaking to A in the background and telling him (without any sense of the impact of these words on a 5–6-year-old child) that the social worker wanted to speak to A to make sure his father is not strangling or abusing him. In contact the father was reported to state/shout 'social services' whenever A fell over. Both occasions give insight into the father's inability to act appropriately and to elevate his own needs and issues over the needs of his son in the moment.
  35. I am not particularly assisted by the failure of the father to comply with proposed terms (a safety plan) not agreed by himself prior to litigation. But this is very different post proceedings. There is clear, indeed admitted, evidence of him removing A from the MGM's care during the proceedings whilst A was placed into the care of the MGM under the terms of an ICO and whilst the LA had the benefit of, and the father was aware of a section 34(4) order. On two identified occasions he simply turned up where the MGM and A were and forced himself onto the situation before taking A away. In the moment the MGM felt, I accept, unable to do anything lest she provoke the situation. However, it was clear to the father he should not have acted in this manner and his account of her abandoning A in his care fundamentally misstates the reality of what occurred. I accept on each occasion he later returned A and that A suffered no direct physical harm but these were clear occasions of the father imposing his will inappropriately onto the MGM and creating a damaging situation for A. He frankly told me that he was aware he could manipulate the situation until the point a non-molestation order was obtained. This sort of behaviour has to stop or be stopped. It is unacceptable for the MGM as primary carer to be put in this position. There were safeguards put in place around contact to reflect the risks posed by the father whether he accepted the same or not and it is not for him to unilaterally decide which rules apply to him. The concerns derive from his dysregulated behaviour which appears associated with his mental health challenges, his unwillingness to follow prescribed medication and previous alcohol abuse. I have regard to the expert clinical advice in the case which supports the care required in managing the father's relationship with A.
  36. For the reasons given I find threshold crossed. I would ask the LA to re-draw the threshold accordingly in line with my own revised wording above and my findings. Whilst I will return to this below, it is important always to stress a threshold is a document arising at the inception of proceedings and that within proceedings a parent has the ability to demonstrate change and progress. I have made clear the father is not a wholly malign individual but he remains a concern as shown by the fact some of these findings have arisen only quite recently. This reflects a combination of his lack of insight and his attitude to and distrust of the system and the professionals that work within it. I saw little in his evidence to suggest he is developing insight in this regard. I am wary as to calibrating the likely timetable for change on the evidence available to me but I am pessimistic as to the prospects for change.
  37. Welfare Assessment

  38. A's welfare is my paramount consideration. I approach his welfare through the welfare checklist found at section 1(3) Children Act. Whilst there is a presumption that he will benefit from having a relationship with his father this is only so long as such a relationship is one which can be managed safely. There is no presumption that he will be better cared for by a parent rather than another individual or that the Court should favour the option of parent over another realistic option. The Court is required to first identify and then assesses all realistic options before determining what is the right outcome for the child. This assessment should take a holistic form and any order which interferes with A's right to respect for his private family life must meet a test of proportionality.
  39. A is too young to have wishes and feelings that are based on a mature understanding of the issues in the case. His wishes have to be assessed in the light of his age and understanding. He is not yet 7. He loves his father and his MGM. He enjoys time with his father and there is nothing to suggest he does not want this to continue, indeed the evidence suggests he does want this to continue. But this is not the same as a wish to live with him. He has now been living with his MGM for most of his life. He appears to be happy in her care. I take care in attaching too much weight to his wishes and feelings whilst not losing sight of them in the overall assessment.
  40. A has ordinary, indeed common needs he shares with most if not all children, for consistent and reliable care. He is receiving this in the care of his MGM. She has been carefully assessed and has obtained a positive assessment. Both the social work team and A's guardian support him remaining with her. These assessments support my finding that she is a dedicated carer who wants the best for A, loves him very much and is dedicated to meeting his needs. Indeed, when asked to reflect on her care it seemed to me the father was willing to give her the credit, she deserves albeit with some reservations. As a young child A has an emotional need for an engaged, available, and predictable carer. There is a significant concern as to the father's consistent and predictable presentation around contact. He finds it a challenge to work with professionals and fails on occasion to prioritise A's needs over his own need to argue his position and prove his case.
  41. The father has raised a question as to the MGM's ability to meet A's physical needs in the light of her age. Plainly and inevitably, she is an older woman but there is nothing to suggest she is not both active and fully engaged with A's physical needs. There is nothing to suggest this will change in the foreseeable future whilst she is bound to slow down to some degree over the course of his childhood. The ideal would of course be for the MGM and father to provide complementary care and support with the strengths of each being used to maximum benefit for A. Unfortunately, the father has not shown an ability to be a proper support to the MGM. In my ultimate analysis I do give regard to the fact a SGO is intended to bring permanence for A and as such I am looking over his childhood (and beyond). This analysis take me into the MGM's later years and one must be mindful of the challenges that may arise. However, during the same period A's needs will develop from those based around physical care to a much higher focus on emotional support. I gauge the MGM has the capacity and strength to maintain care as time passes. In any event I am assessing the best outcome for A in the light of the realistic options before the Court. An alternative to the MGM might otherwise be foster care. That might secure the support of a younger carer but it would face other significant challenges when balanced against family care. This is perhaps why no-one before me advocates for long term stranger foster care.
  42. A has faced real challenges during his childhood in the loss of his mother, the resulting instability and now these proceedings. This impact has been mitigated by the very sensible immediate decision making undertaken by both the MGM and the father in placing A into the MGM's care. I listened with care to the father's evidence as to this period in time. He gave sound and compelling reasons for his decision making at that time. He showed insight into A's needs and his own limitations. I give him credit for this. I would hope he is able to find that insight again and move away from his current attitude in which he sees alternative views as part of a vendetta against him. But this does point to the importance of A now having security and stability in his placement.
  43. Very importantly, and flowing from the points above, A needs to know he is loved by his MGM and father, that he is always in their thoughts and that they both want the best for him and are willing to work supportively to obtain this for him. Both the MGM and father are important to A and their interactions and respect for each other needs to be clearly shown to A via their actions. The MGM voiced a clear recognition of the importance to A of his father. I consider the father at times fails to hear the positive points being made. For instance, he did not seem to understand that the MGM was herself not actively promoting the notion of A being strangled by his father and had her own reservations in such regard. Rather he saw her as being the source of the allegation. Whilst she reported and confirmed what she had been told she had not been the source of the investigation. This is an example of how the father can get lost in his own ruminations.
  44. I am in no doubt that separation of A from his family at this time would be devastating for him. No one argues for this but care must be taken to avoid it being an unintended consequence of poor decision making. I urge the father to keep this point in mind. He makes a point as to the MGM having a level of fragility. But he needs to understand a breakdown in that placement would not necessarily mean A came to him. On the evidence A might instead find himself in stranger foster care. I consider there is a very high premium for A on maintaining his current level of stability given the good care he is receiving and the clear benefits the same is bringing. I am asked to reflect on a move to shared care between the father and MGM. I of course bear in mind the case law which makes clear such an arrangement does not require good levels of co-operation between the respective carers. Yet it does require a level of respect and proper acceptance of the right of each carer to make decisions. It is a difficult to visualise quite how such an arrangement would work between the MGM and father quite aside from some of the other challenges in the case. The MGM has felt compelled to obtain a non-molestation order in the light of the father's unilateral decision making around removal. It is noteworthy such removal occurred within care proceedings and at a time during which the LA in fact held parental responsibility under an ICO. The prospect of repetition of such behaviour is a real concern were the relationship to be wholly shaped within a private arrangement. I also would have concern as to the ability of the MGM to manage the boundaries of the relationship where the father was oppositional to the same. She has found herself caught in a hard place between acting to enforce the arrangement and raising the emotion in the moment to the detriment of A. One would hope in such circumstances the father would back off and act respectfully and responsibly. He has however shown an inability in such regards.
  45. I am therefore wary as to the potential implications for A of any fundamental change of circumstances. But that does not mean any change need be negative. I am for instance asked to consider how contact may progress on the LA's care planning. Under this plan they propose a gradual introduction and review of contact before moving to direct contact. They consider contact needs to be supervised pending evidence of stability and co-operation on the part of the father. Changes to contact are also important changes for A. He values a relationship with his father and will suffer if this is lost or minimised. At his age he needs sufficiently regular contact to make it meaningful. It is crucial all parties including the father approach this topic with A's welfare the central and determining factor. This may mean compromises have to be made for A's benefit. But so long as they are safe, they need to be made.
  46. In setting out my views I have had particular regard to A's age and his recent turbulent history. I have paid regard to the experience of losing his mother and the key individuals in his life.
  47. A central consideration of any assessment of this nature is as to the likely care giver's ability to meet the needs of the child. Within care proceedings the care sought is of a good enough nature. It does not need to be to a gold standard to be acceptable, indeed the Court is expected to tolerant a range of differential parenting styles to include inconsistent and at times deficient parenting. The care required is gauged towards meeting the range of needs of the child including support of contact and working with professionals around the child. It includes meeting the central emotional, physical, and educational needs of the child. It includes being consistent and stable and mindful of the changing needs of a child of A's age.
  48. The Court may have sufficiently good evidence as to not require a formal assessment to answer this question, however within care proceedings the Court will often require some form of assessment. I have the benefit of the SGO assessment of the MGM. It is a thorough and positive report. On any basis the MGM has in fact been meeting A's needs now for many years. She is his primary carer and is a proven carer. The father has also been assessed and I have expert reports analysing his personality and mental health stability. These assessment have reached a common conclusion that the father is not placed to meet A's needs as a primary or shared carer. They express concern as to his interactions with A unless the same is properly managed. They support and underpin the LA's care planning and the separate conclusions of the CG.
  49. In his evidence and through his conduct of the proceedings the father has lent further credence to these conclusions and done little to assuage the concerns. I have reminded myself as to the intense emotional impact these proceedings, the allegations I have found not proven and the history of the case and the impact this will have had on the father. I accept he entered this period with an already traumatic history and mental health fragility. I would not wish to be overly critical of him as his challenges are not entirely of his own making. But he does need to take responsibility for his own conduct and does need to develop a level of insight as to the impact his approach has on others who are solely interested in what is best for his son. When these professionals disagree with him this does not mean they are out to get him. But when he disrespects them, he should surely understand if not expect this behaviour to colour their engagement with him.
  50. In many ways I found the father an engaging participant and witness. He does not hide his feelings and was refreshing at times in his candour. Importantly he plainly loves his son. But I have the luxury of being in control of the process and I gained some respect from the father as a result of this role. I do not lose sight of the different manner in which the father can present when he is himself seeking to establish control. I will address the question of range of powers in the further discussion below.
  51. Discussion

  52. The weight of evidence points firmly in favour of the MGM maintaining care for A. She is currently providing good care; is stable in the care she provides and respects the importance to A of his father and the relationship he has with his father. She is both open to support from professionals and is a positive advocate for A. One could simply observe she is doing a good job and ask why now make changes to what is working?
  53. In contrast whilst the father undoubtedly wants the best for A there are serious and justified concerns as to the stability and consistency of care he will provide were A to be placed into his care as either a primary or significant carer. The threshold findings demonstrate his challenging behaviours both before and during the proceedings. These concern remain relevant at the time of this judgment. His mental health challenges, his unwillingness to engage with suggested medication and the apparent impact the same has upon his presentation does raise concern as to the quality-of-care A would receive placed into his care. Furthermore, his opposition to professionals and the impact this has both directly and indirectly upon A is a further matter of concern. I find it almost impossible to imagine a scenario in which A were with his father without this quickly becoming one in which his day-to-day care was outside the knowledge of concerned professionals. I could not see a plan around the child being workable in placement with the father. His father is simply not open to such a relationship. This means I would need to have confidence in the care his father can bring on a sustained basis. I do not have that confidence.
  54. It is clear to me a comparative analysis of the care likely to be provided by the MGM and the father comes down firmly in favour of the MGM as carer. In principle I can identify no directly negative features arising from her care save for the need to be mindful as to her age. Insofar as there is a concern this derives from the interaction and likely dynamic between the father and the MGM. However, I am quite clear that this is not of itself a function peculiar to the relationship between the father and MGM or a feature that arises from some deficit in her ability to care for the child. In my assessment any individual caring for the child in the private sphere and required to engage with the father would likely face a similar challenge. One can identify challenges arising prior to A's mothers' death, which bears out this analysis.
  55. I consider it important to be clear in my conclusion. On the facts before me were the MGM not available to care for A then he would in all likelihood face placement into long term foster care. The father does need to understand that he has not lost out to the MGM on my assessment. Rather A has avoided an alternative of stranger care due to the option made available by the MGM. This reality needs to be acknowledged by the father.
  56. There is a strong case for this reality to be represented in the making of a special guardianship order. This would reflect the competency of the MGM as found within her assessment. Yet this is not the option proposed by the parties. The history of the thinking in this case was that the LA originally suggested a SGO in conjunction with a contact order in favour of the father. The CG expressed very significant concerns as to this plan and raised the need for an ongoing direct role for the LA given the very likely challenges the father would otherwise bring to the situation. On reflection the LA accepted these points and modified its position. It now proposes the making of a SGO and a care order with the SGO not being discharged. This plan is supported by the CG and MGM.
  57. To first make a SGO order and then to make a care order without permitting the same to discharge the SGO is a most unusual conclusion to be asked to reach. Naturally, I have been referred to the authority of F & G (Discharge of Special Guardianship Order) [2021] EWCA Civ 622. Whilst this authority does put beyond doubt the legal validity of a SGO co-existing with a care order it makes clear such an outcome will be a rare event. This suggests it will be rare to permit a pre-existing SGO to continue in force on the making of a care order. In my assessment to actually make the order at the same hearing as the care order must be if anything even less usual. I note these were the facts in the case of F & G albeit not in relation to the hearing under appeal.
  58. From the outset of the hearing, I made it quite clear I would need to be persuaded as to this point notwithstanding this outcome had full professional support. In making these observations I reflected fully on the terms of the authority above asking myself to what extent any concerns could be managed by creative alternative planning.
  59. I considered a number of points which I found less than compelling. I heard about the potential benefits that would accrue on the MGM sharing parental responsibility for A, although this would not be the elevated PR normally arising given the overarching power of the LA to control the exercise of PR by other holders. I heard about the difficulties the MGM faced when she raised the father removing A from her care with the police. The suggestion was that a SGO might have assisted. But all of these points are capable of management under a care order alone with the LA clearly delegating to the MGM decision making powers. This information could be shared with relevant agencies such as a school to prevent any delays arising. As to the police action the solution was the police acted when they understood A was under an interim care order. In future they would likely act knowing he was under a care order.
  60. I heard about the importance of A understanding the role of his MGM in his life through a SGO. But on any case, there is no challenge or suggestion of placement to the contrary and I judge A will understand her role not through the label which attaches but through the reality of her care.
  61. I also heard about the potential disruption that could be caused by the father at such point in challenging the making of a SGO. This point is militated by the likely process of a special guardianship assessment being undertaken within the care order and presented to the Court in conjunction with a discharge application rather than the Court at such point being asked to order an assessment at a time of opposition by the father. Secondly, there would be nothing to stop the father opposing such a discharge on such terms and so he would have an opportunity to be disruptive if he wished to act in such a manner.
  62. In the ultimate analysis I discounted these points but determined there were three particular points which made this case a rare one which justified the order sought:
  63. i) First, but for the actions of the father and the concerns associated with his behaviour I would be making a SGO alone. This is not a case in which there is a scintilla of concern as to the care offered by the MGM and whilst her care could be fortified under a care order only, I consider it is important to recognise the reality of her otherwise unquestioned good care by making and then maintaining a SGO alongside the making of a care order. This would bring the additional benefit of granting PR to the MGM which has some benefit notwithstanding that point alone could be manged via a care order.

    ii) Secondly, in this case there is fundamental support for the ongoing care offered by the MGM. She is the identified and favoured candidate of all professionals. The care order is not required to assess that care or to provide a residual safeguard against future deficits or issues with that care. The care order is for entirely extraneous reasons which are wholly outside the control of the MGM. The absolute reality is that the MGM will be the effective carer for the child with the support of the LA. There is nothing in the LA's plan which requires them to do other than offer support. Yet support less than a care order will not adequately address the risks arising from the father. Risks which outside a care order have the real potential to destabilise the placement to the point of breakdown. A supervision order or alternatively child in need or other support would simply not be enough at this time. There is good evidence for this conclusion in the recent history of the case. My conclusions tell me the order which actually reflects my assessment is the one proposed by the LA and supported by the CG. A care order alone would be a second best outcome for A.

    iii) Thirdly, as I raised with the CG there must be at least a level of concern as to the circumstances were I not to make a SGO now and were there to be a later SGO assessment at a time when the MGM would be several years older. A contemporaneous medical report would be required and I can at least foresee the potential for such an assessment associated with a care discharge application to be impacted by a level of deterioration in the MGM's health. It might be questioned as to what the material difference is between making an order now and there being the same deterioration later. It may be there is no difference but on balance I consider there is a material difference or the potential for a material distinction to be drawn between a party resuming care under a SGO only and a party seeking to obtain a SGO on fresh evidence. I simply would not want this potential to impact planning for A when it need not do so.

  64. This is a most unusual case in which I consider the best outcome for A will be the making of a SGO followed by the making of a care order without discharging the SGO. I consider whilst this interferes in A's private family life it is a necessary and proportionate interference. Were I solely to order a care order then I would consider this intrusion to be disproportionate in the light of the alternative option favoured within this judgment.
  65. In the light of the conduct of the father and his very frank acceptance that but for the making of the non-molestation order he would have likely continued to manipulate the arrangements I consider it is both necessary and appropriate to continue the order. I will vacate the return date hearing listed by the Court. I consider the risk of harm against which the order seeks to guard will not end in 1-years time. The selection of any date is arbitrary in this case yet I judge it is important to fix an end date and to introduce a degree of optimism into my assessment. I consider the correct period for the order is until the conclusion of A's primary education, being the July following his 11th birthday. In reaching this conclusion I see merit in the potential for such an order to subsist for a period following discharge of any care order. In my assessment it would be overly optimistic to view discharge as likely within the next 2 years.
  66. Contact

  67. It needs to be remembered that contact is for the benefit of the child not the adult. A values his relationship with his father. The MGM recognises this fact and is supportive of contact. Yet the father poses challenges to A's welfare albeit not out of sense of a wish to cause harm to him.
  68. With a degree of reservation, I accept the LA care planning in this case. I accept there needs to be a period, which could be relatively short, in which indirect video contact is used to develop contact and assess the father's ability to engage without destabilising contact. Thereafter I would hope it could move on to include direct contact. I am mindful of the risk of disruption arising should contact be unduly delayed whether by the father acting unilaterally or A becoming disrupted by not seeing his father. Yet there is a risk of harm in permitting contact to progress without safeguards. I agree in the first instance direct contact will need to take place within a supervised setting. The father was somewhat equivocal as to whether he would engage with such contact or not. At one point he said he would not whereas at other times he appeared to state he would if that was all that was ordered. I agree with the CG that it will be A who suffers if the father stands on a sense of principle and refuses to attend contact in a setting other than of his choice. Knowing his feelings for his son I can only hope he will do the right thing and take the opportunity for such contact.
  69. Given the challenges which are likely to arise in the period immediately following contact and in the light of the father's evidence accept there is a need to extend the section 34(4) order for a period of 1 year from the date of this order.
  70. I therefore:
  71. i) Make a special guardianship order;

    ii) I then make a care order and do not discharge the SGO

    iii) I extend the non-molestation order as set out above

    iv) I extend the section 34(4)

    v) I approve the care planning around contact.

  72. I will send this judgment to the advocates; it can be shared with professionals and with the father and MGM. I have listed a remote handing down at 9.30am on 14 May 2025. I would request (i) any proposed corrections; (ii) requests for clarification and (iii) proposed redactions prior to publication (I will also send a basic redacted version of this judgment) to be sent to me by 4pm on 12 May 2025. It would also be helpful to have a draft order in advance of the handing down.
  73. His Honour Judge Willans

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