FD25P00127/ZC25C50084 - [2025] EWHC 2040 (Fam)

ZE was born in March 2008. He is the only child of the short lived relationship between Mrs Z and Mr E, his parents. He has lived nearly all his life with his mother and his older half-brothers. His mother lives in a cramped council flat.

Public law proceedings were issued by the applicant on 18 February 2025 seeking an interim supervision order. ZE was then sixteen. The application pointed out ZE would turn seventeen in March. The applicant sought for him to reside with his father under a child arrangements order and for there to be twice weekly supervised contact with his mother. Whilst the application notice sought an interim supervision order, in the applicant’s witness evidence, its social worker sought the immediate removal of ZE from his mother’s care. The applicant – through the social worker – stated they recognised it was unusual to seek public law orders in respect of an older child but this was an exceptional case and was “so concerning” that the removal was urgent.

The social work evidence charted the background of the applicant’s involvement. It noted ZE has a diagnosis of sinus tachycardia. That he was removed from school by his mother in 2017. That his mother had not provided him with any proper home education and had not engaged with the applicant’s Elective Home Education Team (“EHE Team”). It stated she had failed to engage him in education or socially. The evidence was that he was subjected to chronic neglect. He had missed many medical appointments and the cardiology team had discharged him in 2022 because of his mother’s non-engagement. It noted the history. ZE came to the attention of children’s services in July 2019 under the category of neglect. The referral had been made by the EHE Team. In August 2023 a Police Merlin report raised concerns about ZE in the light of his mother’s mental health. She had made delusional allegations against her neighbours. A section 47 Children Act 1989 Act (hereafter “the 1989 Act”) assessment began which led to a Child Protection Plan for neglect in October 2023. It noted the case was then closed in June 2024. In August 2024 the Fire Brigade made a referral because of severe hoarding in the family home and noted significant black mould on the walls. It noted a Community Mental Health Team jointly visited with the police in August 2024. The witness statement states Mrs Z was sectioned and ZE was placed with his father. It notes the ‘section’ was overturned at a ‘tribunal’ and ZE returned home, apparently without children’s services being informed. A further child and family assessment took place in October 2024 which led to a Child Protection Plan in January 2025. No mention is made in the evidence of the failure to consider the Public Law Outline.

The applicant served an interim threshold which alleged inter alia that whilst ZE had a heart condition he had not been seen by any medical professional since 2019. The interim threshold alleged he “has been out of education since 2017……[the mother] has since refused to engage with the Elective Home Educations Team or provide [ZE] with a formal education”. The applicant’s pleading further alleged ZE was socially isolated, shared a bedroom with his mother and she, Mrs Z, has a history of “delusional paranoia” and, in 2024, was “sectioned under S3 of the Mental Health Act” admitted to hospital and ZE was placed under police protection. This application was served on Mrs Z.

A hearing took place before District Judge Hudd on 3 March 2025. Mrs Z did not attend nor was she represented. The court made an interim care order. The social worker attended the family home to explain the court order on 4 March 2025 in the morning. Nobody answered. The matter returned to court that day and the applicant sought, and obtained, a recovery order pursuant to section 50 of the 1989 Act.

On 7 March 2025, eight police officers arrived at the family home, with two social workers. They used force to enter the home. I have seen the police body camera video footage. The flat was dirty and cramped. Mrs Z was present with ZE and his older brother. A number of police officers entered the hallway. Mrs Z was visibly upset and angry. She was shouting at the police officers and demanding to see a signed warrant. The police saw a hammer and a knife on furniture in the hallway and they removed them from the flat. She was shown the recovery order and she pointed out it was not signed and contained the wrong date of birth. ZE was taken away by the police. His mother can be seen to ensure he has clothes, a hot water bottle and his heart medication before he leaves. ZE was placed with his father. The social work evidence filed following the removal states: “the removal was challenging, requiring the presence of eight police officers. Upon arrival, the police found [ZE]’s mother was armed with a meat cleaver and a hammer, which were taken from her and secured by officers.” It states she “became physical” and “had to be restrained” in order for the police to gain access to ZE. The statement continues: “his mother has significant mental health challenges, including delusional thinking and paranoia, and has previously demonstrated violent behaviour.”

Mr E filed a witness statement dated 11 March 2025. He agreed with the applicant’s interim threshold. He pointed out that Mrs Z stymied his attempts to develop a relationship with ZE and she failed to comply with various private law orders made for him to spend time with his son. He says he has seen ZE two or three times a year over the last few years. He has not been in her home since ZE was a baby and he was not aware she had taken him out of school. He notes ZE was upset over being removed from the family home. He notes ZE has become calmer and settled in the days after his removal. He gets on well with him.

On 17 March 2025, the applicant issued an application to make ZE a ward of court. It noted that it could not obtain a care order before ZE turned seventeen and therefore sought wardship to permit the court to exercise parental responsibility over ZE. Poole J made ZE a ward of court on 24 March 2025. The order noted the applicant is committed to reviewing contact with a view to arranging supervised telephone contact between ZE and his mother. Disclosure orders were made against the Metropolitan Police. At a further hearing, various case management directions were then made and a final hearing was listed with a pre-trial review, as directed by Mr. David Rees KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge.

At the pre-trial review all parties submitted the final hearing should be adjourned because the local authority had not filed all their evidence, disclosure was missing from ZE’s medical records and the Metropolitan Police had not complied with the previous disclosure orders made. I refused to discharge the trial. A further hearing before a High Court Judge would likely not have taken place prior to December 2025. This would have led to the interim position, based upon untested evidence, enduring from March 2025 to December 2025. Furthermore, it did not seem proportionate to list a five day trial at the end of the year for an order that would only endure until ZE turns eighteen in March 2026. I made directions for the urgent disclosure of GP records, for the Metropolitan police to comply with the earlier disclosure orders made and directed a final witness statement from the applicant and a response to the “threshold” from Mrs Z.