![FD25P00127/ZC25C50084 - [2025] EWHC 2040 (Fam)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_0FrGysm.png){kind=logo}
Conclusions
Welfare
ZE has lived with his father since March 2025. He is settled. He has been able to “vote with his feet” and contact his mother or return to her home. The evidence is that he has never done so.
The Guardian’s insightful assessment of his wishes and feelings is her report is as follows:
[ZE]’s verbalised wishes are that he wants to return to the care of his mother. He has maintained that wish on both occasions I have met with him, and his reasoning for this is always that this is where he considers his home because that’s where his mother and brothers are, and that’s where he grew up. [ZE] referred to his mother’s home as “where the fondness is at”. [ZE] feels that things would be better at mum’s house if they were given a bigger property. [ZE] reports that he feels ok with his father, but his overall preference is to return to his mother. It’s clear to me however, that [ZE] visualises his future in his father’s house, because when talking about college, he reflected that there were space limitations at dad’s house which may hinder his studies, and he talked me through how he planned to get to college from his father’s house. This is an important observation in my view, because it suggests that [ZE]’s verbalised wishes and feelings aren’t in keeping with his subconscious processing.
In his report, the single joint expert, Dr Corr, clinical psychologist, notes that “when considering future care arrangements, [ZE] did not express a strong preference between living with his mother or father and indicated that he would be happy to live with either, although at points during the assessment [ZE] did state that he wished to live with his mother. [ZE] stated that if he was to live with his mother, this would need to be in a larger property with four bedrooms.”
ZE’s counsel told me he wanted to go home to his mother. ZE did not want to meet the judge and believed I would make the right decision for him. I was told if he does go home he would like to see more of his mum.
Considering all the written and oral evidence, in my judgment, ZE most clearly wants to go to College in September and succeed and obtain an education. Both expert witnesses assess him to be at least of average or above intelligence. Despite his mother’s inadequate home schooling, he is attaining fairly well albeit with a few deficits. I think he wants to be settled. He knows it is unlikely his mother will obtain a four bedroom house. I find the Guardian’s analysis of the disparity between what he says he wants to her and how he visualises his future at College to be very helpful. It might also be the case that if ZE wanted the judge to know he really wanted to go home to Mrs Z, he would have told me that in writing or at a meeting.
ZE is now enjoying some socialisation. He enjoys he visits to the seaside to see his father’s family and his cousins. His medical care is more consistent. He lives in a cleaner, less cluttered environment. He has his own bed and bedroom. His father is a kind and caring man.
His Guardian’s evidence is:
I support the Local Authority plan for [ZE] to remain in the care of Mr [E]. My view is that should [ZE] return to the care of Ms [X], he would suffer significant harm by way of neglect. This is an exceptional case, because in the face of overwhelming indication that [ZE] was suffering harm, he was failed by agencies who should have protected him. In addition to closing [ZE]’s child protection plan in 2024; in the absence of evidence that concerns had resolved or lessened in my view, the Local Authority failed to act accordingly when [ZE] returned home to the care of Ms [X] when Ms [X] returned home from hospital in September 2024, proposing another child protection plan despite evidence available to them that such a plan would unlikely afford [ZE] any protection. The Local Authority continued to be refused entry into the home after this event, and it was known that a month before that the conditions were unsafe. It is difficult to comprehend that it took some months before the Local Authority made their application, and that the application made was for a interim supervision order, which would not have afforded [ZE] the protection that he needed. In my view, this inaction from the Local Authority has contributed towards the neglect that [ZE] has experienced in his childhood”.
The welfare analysis is quite straightforward. I think Mrs Z recognised this but did not want to be seen to be giving up on ZE. For the reasons set out above, ZE’s welfare dictates that residing with his father is in his best interests.
The applicant and Mr E are concerned that Mrs Z will undermine ZE’s confidence and security living with his father. They are particularly concerned around the time he begins college in September. There is that risk. However, when I asked the social work manager if there was evidence Mrs Z had tried to undermine the placement with Mr E, she did not identify any. The applicant complains that Mrs Z has raised ‘adult’ themes with ZE. He is nearly an adult and it is hard to police their conversations. ZE has capacity to decide who to spend time with. It would be overly protective to police all his contact with his mother by the requirement for it to be supervised. I feel that ZE is awaiting my decision on where he should reside and he will stand behind it. I also detect that Mrs ZE has contested issues because she has been unfairly characterised by the applicant in these proceedings. She has failed ZE because of her neglect of his education, the cleanliness of the home and her only sporadic interactions with medics and other professionals. That being said, she has brought up her son to be a polite young man. He has reasonable educational attainments and the potential to do much more. She was not assisted by bringing up three boys alone in inner London in a cramped flat. There are obvious risks for any boy growing up in inner London. I was told the risks likely increase because of ZE’s Caribbean heritage. I accept there are risks of involvement in crime or being a victim of crime, of violence and gang related issues. ZE’s counsel was correct to reference ZE’s protected characteristics and the Lammy Review in her submissions. ZE knows nothing or little of this world. His mother has protected him from that albeit she has failed him with her neglect. She is not, however, the seriously mentally unwell, machete wielding, violent woman she has been made out to be by the applicant. She may feel some small level of vindication. She has been well represented by Ms Hudson who has demonstrated through her effective cross-examination and her submissions the errors in the applicant’s case. I say this because I hope, that Mrs Z will also accept my welfare findings for her son. I hope she will, therefore, not undermine his security living with his father.
ZE currently sees his mother in person twice a week for supervised contact. He also enjoys supervised telephone contact.
I am of the view ZE should be able to see his mother for a couple of hours every week in the community (not in her home). This can start from August. This should be the subject of light touch support but not close supervision. This can replace one of the supervised weekly contact sessions. There has to be a balance of building up unsupervised time between ZE and Mrs Z. Supervised video contact can take place as offered from now. Two weeks after he has settled into college, I can see no real reason why he cannot call his mother unsupervised. The applicant must carry out a review of the necessity of support or supervision every 14 days between now and the next hearing, document the same and provide it to the parties. If supervision or support cannot be reduced, justification should be provided. I am providing permission for support/supervision, but the applicant must consider whether it remains necessary. All supervision and support will come to an end by 30 September 2025. That will permit me to assess the situation at the review hearing in mid-October.
If Mrs Z seeks to undermine his home with his father or his college placement, there are measures that can be taken and I am unlikely to hesitate to step in to protect ZE, assuming I have jurisdiction to do so. The applicant will have liberty to apply to cease contact or provide for supervision if this is needed. I hope that will not be necessary.
I agree ZE should have a passport. If he wishes to travel abroad before March 2026, I will consider that issue.
I shall continue ZE’s wardship until a one hour review hearing in October 2025. I would hope at that stage proceedings can come to end. ZE will be informed about my decisions through his solicitor. I would want two key message to me relayed to him from me: (i) his college placement is a wonderful opportunity and I hope he is able to embrace it; and (ii) I have decided where I think it is best for him to live but I have also recognised the importance of his relationship with his mum, who he will continue to see her regularly.
I thank all counsel for their assistance and ask they draft an order to give effect to this judgment.