CA-2025-001564 - [2025] EWCA Civ 1368

In March 2023, Dr Parsons undertook forensic psychology assessments of the grandfather and uncle. In respect of the grandfather, he could not entirely rule out the possibility of deviant sexual interest in pubescent males being present, but he assessed the level of risk of sexual harm posed to children generally as ‘very low’. He considered it prudent that the grandfather did not undertake any intimate care of the children.

As for the uncle, Dr Parsons’ ultimate conclusion in June 2023 was that it was important to note that he had no convictions for sexual offences and that, while he could not rule out the possibility of adult sexual risk, if it did exist it was ‘very low’.

In September 2023, the local authority filed its special guardianship report, principally authored by Liselle Harold, an independent social worker. Considerable strengths were noted. The couple had been cooperative, and had used outside resources well to meet the needs of three lively children. The family was a close one and the children were being provided with warmth and affection. However, a comprehensive risk assessment was necessary to consider measures to mitigate risk before a final recommendation could be made.

That assessment was carried out by an independent social worker, Ms Rachel Sensicle, who interviewed both grandparents and the uncle and reported in March 2024. In her reports, which occupy 120 pages, she assessed the grandfather as posing a ‘low’ risk of sexual harm, but she assessed the risk as increasing to ‘low-medium’ as a result of him being a carer for the children, due to the opportunity to offend. She assessed the uncle as typically posing a ‘low’ risk of sexual harm to children, but considered that having unsupervised access to the children increased that risk to ‘low-medium’. She noted that there had not been a fact-finding hearing in relation to the allegations that the uncle denied. In regard to the grandmother, Ms Sensicle expressed concern about her inability to make choices that benefitted her health.

In March 2024, having seen Ms Sensicle’s reports, Ms Harold completed her special guardianship assessment. She considered that there was “sufficient information to raise concern” regarding the grandparents’ capacity to safeguard the children and meet their care needs in the long term. She agreed with Ms Sensicle that it was “not defensible to ignore the level of risk based on known information”. She was “also mindful that there are usually many unknowns in relation to sexual abuse risks within families”. She was not able to recommend that the children remain in the care of the grandparents.

Dr Parsons was asked to consider the level of risk identified by Ms Sensicle. He did not disagree, noting that she had had access to wider information.

In her evidence, the children’s social worker acknowledged the positives within the children's placement with their grandparents. She confirmed that the children were happy and spoke positively about their grandparents, and that the family had engaged well with the support that the local authority had put in place. The children were clean and well presented, and were being supported to have a positive relationship with their father. Their school attendance was good and there had been no recurrence of the reported incidents involving R. The uncle had moved out of the home. Nevertheless, the final care plans had not changed. The social worker agreed with Ms Sensicle about the risks to the children remaining with the grandparents. The uncle’s move did not reduce the risks because he continued to spend time in the grandparents’ home and with the children. The plan was for removal into foster care even though a placement had not yet been identified.

The Children’s Guardian similarly acknowledged that the children’s basic care needs were being met by their grandparents and that the children were happy and doing well. However, she was not reassured that they would have the capacity to protect and keep the children “100% safe”. She referred to “patterns of repeated behaviour in the generations”. She described the decision as a very difficult one as the children had been with the grandparents for a long time, but she felt that the current safeguards could not be sustained and that there was nothing that would keep the children safe in the long term. Only 24-hour support in the home could fully prevent the children from being exposed to sexual risk. She therefore supported the care plan, but recommended monthly contact in place of the original care plan for contact to be every two months.