NG23C50181 - [2025] EWHC 810 (Fam)

The LA seeks care orders in respect of all the children, with them remaining in their current placements. They point not merely to the history of very serious domestic abuse between the M and R2, but also the M’s chaotic lifestyle with frequent moves of home with the children; her failure to get A to school regularly and her cannabis use which they say impacted on her parenting. The LA points to the fact that the M has moved very frequently, giving the children little or no stability in their lives before they were removed from her care. They also say that the parents provided little stimulation to the children, and it is posited that may be a reason for B’s developmental delay. I note that it is impossible to know whether that is correct or not.

Importantly, they also refer to the M and R2’s failure to regularly attend contact and the impact this has had on the children, in particular A who has become very distressed when her mother had not attended. According to the social worker there is a pattern of the parents confirming contact in the morning but then cancelling in the afternoon.

The Guardian supports the LA’s application, but raised a strong concern about the level of sibling contact that had been happening. As far as I could gather there had actually only been two sibling contacts in the last six months. Sibling contact is difficult because A is in in H County and the younger children are in G County. Z does not have a car large enough for all the children. Also it is an understandably daunting prospect for Z to drive long distances with three children under the age of five.

The LA have agreed to fund Z renting a car for sibling contact. They will also take on the responsibility of organising such contact 6 times per annum. This will be written into the care plan.

The Mother wishes for the children to return to her care. The M and R2 are currently homeless. They were living outside the LA area but the landlord demanded 12 months rent upfront which they were unable to pay and were evicted. A few weeks ago they moved to K County in part to be closer to the younger children. For a short period they stayed in a B&B, and a Travelodge, but for at least one night they were street homeless.

The M says that it has not been her fault that her attendance at contact with both A and the younger children has not been consistent. When she and R2 were living outside the LA area it was extremely difficult to get to contact because they needed to get a bus from the village to the train station and the times of the bus made it very hard to get to contact. Although I am sure finances have played their part, the fact that contacts have been frequently cancelled at very short notice does not support an analysis that this is simply down to money issues.

The M denies that her cannabis use impacted on her parenting. She had, up to the morning of the hearing not accepted threshold, and therefore denied both the domestic abuse incidents, but also their impact on the children. She made a limited concession at the hearing before me, through Mr Clulee. I note however, that there was no indication in her written statements or in Mr Clulee’s submissions that she really accepted the impact of the domestic abuse incidents on the children.

She said in her statement that A’s poor attendance at school was because the M intended to home school her, but said that she “had gone about it in the wrong way”. I note that there does not appear to be any evidence of the M actually schooling A. Home schooling does not simply mean keeping a child at home and not sending them to school. I note that the evidence from the school was that A was significantly behind her peers when she returned to regular school attendance.

R3 accepts that he is not in a position to care for A.