Case No. EWFC-156

14There is a limited amount that is factually in dispute in this case. There are some differences between the mother and the local authority about the extent to which P’s needs have been met by the mother in the past. However, the mother accepts that the threshold criteria are met broadly in the terms alleged by the local authority. The key issue in this case is the mother’s ability in the long-term to provide good enough care for P.15The mother has made allegations of domestic abuse against the father in her written evidence and to the independent social worker. Those allegations have been strongly denied by the father. Findings have not been sought by any party and I am entirely satisfied, in the context of this case, that it is unnecessary for me to determine those allegations. This is a classic welfare case which requires the court to balance the advantages and disadvantages of the outcomes proposed by the parties. 16The local authority seeks a final care order. The plan is that P should be placed in foster care immediately at the conclusion of this hearing. The local authority has filed two care plans. The first, filed with its final evidence in February 2022, proposed that P would have weekly contact with each of her parents, to be kept under review. On the penultimate day of the hearing, the local authority filed an amended care plan in which it set out a proposal to reduce P’s contact with both of her parents if a final order is made to the level of four times a year. 17The mother opposes the local authority’s application and seeks for P to remain in her care.18The father also opposes the application. His primary position is that P should continue to live with her mother. If the court does not permit that, he wishes to put himself forward to care for her. In order to achieve that, the father proposes that the case is adjourned for a further assessment of him to be carried out. He says that there are gaps in the assessment undertaken in these proceedings and he has not had a fair opportunity to demonstrate what he can offer his daughter.19The Guardian supports the local authority’s application for a final care order. However, she does not agree that the level of contact in the final care plan, that being contact on four occasions a year with each parent, would meet P’s needs. She accepts that contact should be kept under review and reduced if the placement is undermined but thinks that P’s relationships with her family need to be sustained and weekly contact would be appropriate.