FD25C40134 - [2025] EWHC 745 (Fam)

Just before the first hearing, in February, BM, who had previously been unsure about the LA’s care plan formally agreed to it. She was the only one of the four holders of PR who had, until that point, not positively agreed with the LA’s plan for QX.

At that point, the LA changed its position from wanting a care order and a “DoLs” order, to asking for neither.

PR is complicated in this case. Since there is a s.20 agreement, it is important for me to consider this issue.

BF and BM have parental responsibility because BM is QX’s mother, and BF acquired it as his father.

DM and DF only acquired PR when they sought and obtained a CAO in December 2023.

Oddly, however, a separate order was made by the Magistrates at the same time which purports to grant PR to DM and DF as a freestanding application. Counsel before me all agreed this is wrong. DM and DF did lawfully obtain PR as part of the CAO, made at the same time. I am not sure what the parties intend to happen to the “freestanding” order, however, I consider it should be set-aside by this Court. That means, DF and DM will have PR for as long as the CAO remains in place. That order provides that QX shall live with DF and DM.

PR is the central feature of the s. 20 “agreement”. The statutory provision states: